Learn Writing with Uncle Jim, Volume 1

[drgnlvrljh]

*THUD* x.X I made it all the way through the thread!

And I came up with a question, that I didn't see a category for elsewhere (Of course, I coulda missed it, too).

How do you deal with taxes, if your book is bought? I'm assuming you have to pay your own, but do you pay to the state the publisher is in? The state you're in? Both? And what would be a good rule of thumb for holding out on taxes to be paid? Something like 33% be safe?

[Risseybug]

I've been an "independent contractor" for other things, not writing, but I'll help you out as best I can.

You pay income tax to the federal government and the state you live in. You only have to file if you make over $600. If you don't make that much, your publisher is not even required to send you a form telling you how much you made. Now, if you do make over that, the publisher will send you a 1099-Misc. form, since technically you don't work for them, you are in independent contractor who did work and got paid.

Now, if you sell a bunch of articles, save your paystubs, b/c it will be up to you to keep track of how much you make writing. Again, if it's not over $600, don't bother to file.

[maestrowork]

He glanced at the ceiling and paused, as if wondering if he could trust her.

I tend to dislike this kind of narrative inference from the POV character. It's by no means "wrong"; it's just my preference. To me, it's as if the author doesn't trust herself (that she couldn't make it apparent simply by action or dialogue) or the readers (that they couldn't figure it out), that she's taking the experience away from the readers. I dislike it when the author tries to explain everything, for fear that the readers won't "get it."

Think about the movies. When an actor emotes and makes an expression ("glanced at the ceiling and paused"), you don't hear a V.O. saying "he didn't trust her." The material, scene, action, dialogue, etc. all together are supposed to convey that. The typical "show vs. tell" issue here. I'd rather see this:

He glanced at the ceiling and paused.
"It's not about trust," she said. He glanced away and cleared his throat.

[maestrowork]

Taxes. I suppose you mean income taxes. Like Rissey said, you pay Fed and State where you live (in states like Florida or Texas, you pay no State taxes). The only exception is (and many people don't know this -- I didn't at first), if you work/live away from your home state for more than a defined period at a time (I think it's either 30 or 90 days... I have to check), you need to file State taxes of that state. Let's say you're a filmmaker, and you've worked/lived in Arizona for 3 months shooting a movie, and your home state is California, you need to file for Arizona state taxes. You will get a credit OFF your California taxes.

Again, if it's not over $600, don't bother to file.

Hmmm... I believe if you're required to file a return at all (total income -- including writing, day job, etc. -- over a certain limit), you will have to report that earning anyway.

[James D Macdonald]

How do you deal with taxes, if your book is bought?

Schedule C, with quarterly estimated taxes.

Quicken plus TurboTax.

[Risseybug]

Well, that's what I mean, you need to file if your total income is over $600. But if you don't receive over that amount from any one source, it is up to you to add it up and report it. You won't get a 1099 from anyone who doesn't pay you that amount. At least, they're not required to send it.

I hate schedule C. Jim, how in the world do you estimate what you will make in that quarter?

[drgnlvrljh]

Thanks so much for the info, everyone.

And that is a good question. How do you "estimate" taxes?

Okay, maybe I'm treading somewhere that would require going to H&R Block, or something. Just tell me to hush, and I'll skulk back under my couch ;)

[maestrowork]

From my experience, you "estimate" your quarterly taxes by looking at your last year's return. Take 90% of your last year's taxes, divide by 4, and that's your quarterly estimate this year. However, if your situation has changed (say, you had a full time job last year but this year, you're on 1099 only), then you should probably do a best guess.

You only get into trouble when your quarterly taxes fall far short of your actual year-end tax liability.

But don't take my words for it. Consult a CPA.

[jeffspock]

Thanks for the link, Jim. It was interesting reading, and the mix of conclusions was at once heartening and depressing. To whit:
- More midlist books are getting published (your chances are as good as always)
- They are selling fewer copies (chances to be published, that is; not chances to make money)
- The death of the independent bookstore and general evolutions in retail concentration are widening the gap between the few big titles that do well and the mass of titles that sink without a trace.

Definitely worth perusing.

For those of you who don't want to slog through the whole thing, at least check out the conclusions on page 7.

:rolleyes

[James D Macdonald]

For those of you who don't want to slog through the whole thing, at least check out the conclusions on page 7.

Nevertheless, for those who are doing this "writing" thing as something more than a hobby, it's worth your while to read the entire report, and other reports, and everything else you can get your hands on, to try to understand the business.

No one source contains all of the truth. The many, combined with your own observations and experience, can approach it.

[Vulpes Sapien]

Wow. I've been reading through this thread for over a week, and I've finally read the last post. I feel so excited!

I have learned a lot. For one thing, I've gone through and made every "and then" justify its existence. :)

I will add my agreement to those who were baffled or bored by the beginning of The Summons. It would never have occured to me that the painting was of a KKK man, nor would it have placed him in the South in my mind. I live in Canada, so references like that go right over my head - shouldn't an experienced author like Grisham realize that he writes for an international audience?

How much detail do all of you go into for character sketches and how in the world do you come up with the information? For example, character sketches that ask me what sort of childhood my character had, or what his favourite colour is. Am I supposed to just pick things out of a hat?

For instance, I have eight characters (not sure what to call them - main characters? The people you'll see throughout the story) and I have no idea about their height/weight/hair colour, except that one guy is black. I played around with name generators until I found combinations that I liked, although I changed some spellings. Is there anything similiar that can help me come up up with basic characters - after which I can change, add and prune to make my character fit the story?

Or am I asking a really stupid question?

[James D Macdonald]

I have no idea about their height/weight/hair colour, except that one guy is black.

Then don't say anything about their height/weight/hair color. If it isn't important to the story, let the reader fill in something that's meaningful to him.

If, in the course of writing the story, you learn that one of the characters has to be a 300 pound blond guy, and another has to be under five foot tall and a redhead, well, that's great (I use filecards to record this stuff as I'm writing). In the second draft you go back and put in the descriptions when the characters are introduced.

As you write the book, trust me, you will come to know what your characters look like.

[neddyf]

Hi James and all users in this thread

I have just found this site and have started to read this thread. I have been looking for something like this for ages...is it ok to post questions about your earlier postings as I read the previous 125 pages? Up to page 24 so far!

One quick question about Setting, which you may well have gone through already, sorry if you have. I am in the planning stage of a book where the good guy takes his revenge on a few people (ex employers etc). I have the start and end, and a few sub plots and hope it will come together in the middle (big ask I guess).

Regardsing Setting, is it better to use fictional city/town/street names and base it somehwere you know, or use the real place and maybe add a few extras for effect?

Thanks in advance and I'll read as much as possible as quickly as I can to get up to page 126!

Cheers

Ned

[James D Macdonald]

Regardsing Setting, is it better to use fictional city/town/street names and base it somehwere you know, or use the real place and maybe add a few extras for effect?

Either could work -- author's choice.

You have advantages and disadvantages either way.

With a fictional city, no one is going to object that there's no such place as Eddie's Pawn Shop on Fifth and Elm, and there's no Fifth Street anyway -- it was renamed Pascal Drive in 1983.

With a fictional city people are going to say "Funny, I never heard of Dunton, and why don't all these people make their lives easier by moving to Sacramento?

With a real city, your readers will have mental pictures of the place already, so there's less work to do in building your setting. You can spend more time on your story. You can also research the place, and find interesting details that can help make your story come alive. (And you can go visit the place, have a great time, and write it off on your taxes. (Note: Take the advice of a tax professional before you do this.))

Unfortunately, a real city may not have real places that you'll need, and may trip you up -- see Pascal Drive, above. The natives may give you a hard time. And you may have to make sure that somewhere you're using as a set isn't real. If you make the owner of Gino's Pizzaria a serial adulterer and have him come to a sticky end, you may want to make sure there isn't really a Gino's Pizzaria in that town. The owner might get perturbed.

Anyway -- authors have gone both ways. I'm sure in your reading you've found both. If you can make the setting seem real to your readers, you've got it licked. Faulkner used Yoknapatawpha County, and there never was such a place. Ed McBain uses New York City, and there certainly is.

You want advice? Put it in a real place that you know. Later on, if need be, you can use the mighty hand of Global Search and Replace to change all the names.

[James D Macdonald]

I will add my agreement to those who were baffled or bored by the beginning of The Summons. It would never have occured to me that the painting was of a KKK man, nor would it have placed him in the South in my mind. I live in Canada, so references like that go right over my head - shouldn't an experienced author like Grisham realize that he writes for an international audience?

Perhaps he's writing for an international audience -- but he's also writing for himself. Grisham personally is a middle-aged Southern lawyer.

Not all books speak to all readers. That's why there are a lot of books, and why we need to see your book.

<HR>

For those of you who are catching up -- there are lots of exercises along the way. I seriously recommend that y'all do 'em.

I mean, if I ever meet you in person I'll expect you to know how to fold a paper hat, and be able to recite poems and quote Shakespeare.

(Will that make you a better writer? Yes.)

Okay, new exercise for y'all: Go get a movie on DVD, a recent one with lots of "extras." Now watch it. Then watch it with the director's commentary. Then watch the deleted scenes. Watch the alternate endings. Understand why it is that those scenes were deleted. Understand why the actual ending was the one that was used. (A great film for alternate endings is <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005JMA8/ref=nosim/madhousemanor" target="_new">28 Days Later</A>.)

Are we making movies? No, we're telling stories. The arts are related.

Next exercise: Get a big box of <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/OBIDOS/ASIN/ B0001DUAR4/ref=nosim/madhousemanor/" target="_new">crayons</A>. Get a <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005IX8H/ref=nosim/madhousemanor" target="_new">big tablet of paper</A>. Sit in your kitchen and draw some object, in its setting. The point here is to learn to see things. Find the details. Find the colors. See the shapes and relationships. Make it real. Use up all your paper. Make every picture the best it can be.

All the arts are related.

[James D Macdonald]

It's said that if you fold a thousand cranes (http://www.monkey.org/~aidan/origami/crane/) in a single year that your prayer will be answered.

Perhaps it will.

Get yourself a whole mess of <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/080483525X/ref-nosim/madhousemanor" target="_new">origami paper</A>, and start folding cranes. Pray that you will become a better writer.

Before the year (and the thousanth crane) is done, I promise that you will be good at folding cranes. You'll be able to fold cranes without looking. You'll be able to fold cranes in your hands without needing a table to crease them.

Will you be a better writer? Perhaps your prayer will be answered.

Then, for the next year, take the time that you spent folding cranes, and write words. At the end of the year, I promise you'll be a better writer. Just as you got good at folding cranes with practice, you'll get good at writing.

Perhaps your earlier cranes didn't turn out too well. You worked on your technique, you made sure the edges met exactly, you learned to make your creases sharp.

Perhaps in your earlier writing the stories didn't turn out too well. You'll learn to describe your characters exactly, you'll learn to make your plots sharp.

Folding a thousand cranes is a good thing in itself. (At the very least you'll always have a party trick with which you can amuse a child.) Rather than praying to become a better writer, pray for health and peace for others. When you're finished with your cranes, string them as a mobile and donate it to a hospital.

Best wishes to all in this holiday season.

[Joanclr]

Uncle Jim, I want to ask your opinion on 3rd person Omniscient POV (where you are aware of all character's thoughts and alternate among them without a scene change). From what I've read, it's rarely used, difficult to pull off, but acceptable if done properly with smooth transitions. However, when chatting with my crit group last night, a couple people mentioned that they find this POV jarring to read and tend to view it as poor writing.

"Wild Seed" by Octavia E. Butler used this to great effect, but I am wondering what editors and publishers (and readers!) tend to think of this style (particularly as seen in a first-time author). Is it generally accepted?--Or the sort of thing that may well tip the scales of favor against you? I feel my story would be told best in that style, but if it is a less common form of writing, or not universally appreciated, then I may do better to keep to 3rd Rotating (switching by scene).

Since the story will end up coming out somewhat differently according to which POV I use, I'm hoping to do my research beforehand and get it as near to right as possible so as to save work in the long run.

Any thoughts on this subject would be much appreciated.
Thanks!

Joan

[neddyf]

James

I'm still on catch-up. Page 49 now.

Could you post a short example of 1st, 3rd and 3rd Omni for me (us) please. This will help me make sure I am doing it right.

Thanks again for a great thread.

Ned

[James D Macdonald]

Joan, if that's what's best for your story then that's what you should use.

Yes, it's a fiendishly difficult POV to use ... well. Is your skill up to it? Octavia Butler can manage because Octavia Butler is an excellent writer.

Not every pianist can play every piano concerto. Some are more difficult than others; some pianists are more skilled than others.

What can I say? Try. The master rule is Does It Work.

(Note: If you do it and it works, editors and readers won't care if you're a first timer. What tips the scales against you is not carrying off what you attempt.)

[maestrowork]

Some well-known authors occasionally slip into ominscient when they write in 3rd limited... the result is okay -- probably only a writer would notice since it is only a slip-up or two. For example, in Skipping Christmas (which is NOT my favorite Grisham book at all) the POV character is mostly Luther Krank, sometimes Nora. But Grisham slipped the POV to minor characters at various places. I'm very sure it's not deliberate -- it's more laziness and sloppiness on his part. Does it work? No. But they happen so rarely in the book that it's not noticeable. A big name like Grisham can get away with that.

[Joanclr]

Wise advice, Uncle Jim. I think I am motivated to give it a shot. After all, the worst that can happen is the old revise, revise, revise.

Do you have any specific tips for writing in this POV?Anything you'd recommend watching out for or ways to use it most effectively?

Thanks again,
Joan

[Fillanzea]

On the subject of a thousand cranes, and not about writing at all, but oh well:

"Sadako and the Thousand Paper Cranes," a short and heartbreaking book, is highly recommended. It's about a girl who develops leukemia because of the atomic bombs that hit Japan.

I went to the Nagasaki atomic bomb memorial one year, and saw colored streamers as I walked along the path. When I looked closer I realized that they were made up of tiny origami cranes, strung together, as a prayer for peace.

I can fold a crane in about two minutes. A thousand would take six minutes a day for a year... I suspect that it would take more time than that to improve me much as a writer. :b

[James D Macdonald]

On the subject of a thousand cranes, and not about writing at all....

Welcome, Fillanzea. As you'll discover from this thread, for me everything is about writing.

If you devote as little as six minutes a day to writing, for a year, and you use those six minutes fully, your writing will improve. How much, that I can't say.

[Nateskate]

More great insights. Great thread.

I'm starting from the beginning, but also I go to the end to see what's new as well.

You should think about publishing this book! It's a good read.

[James D Macdonald]

Do you have any specific tips for writing in this POV? Anything you'd recommend watching out for or ways to use it most effectively?

Alas, no. I don't have any specific tips. There aren't any cheats that I know of for writing omniscent third.

(For third limited, one cheat is to write each scene in first person, then translate to third in the next draft.)

The only thing I can suggest is that you take a stack of works by major talents written in third omniscent, and analyse them. See how they work. See what the author is doing. Retype whole chapters. Break them down sentence by sentence. Use highlighters to mark the shifting viewpoints.

Does this sound like you have to teach yourself a masters-level literature course?

Yes.

Then, into the deep end of the pool with you. Write your book.

Remember Yoda? "There is no try. Do ... or do not."

[neddyf]

James

My recent post was:

I'm still on catch-up. Page 49 now.

Could you post a short example of 1st, 3rd and 3rd Omni for me (us) please. This will help me make sure I am doing it right.

Thanks again for a great thread.

Ned

---------------

What I mean, is a short scene, but from the 3 different angles (POV).

Is that possible ?

Thanks

Ned

[sc211]

Hi Ned,

Maybe this will help with your POV question.

1st Person:
I picked up the rock, felt the cool weight of it in my hand, and threw it at Jane. Jane swore at me and ran off.

3rd Person Limited:
Dick picked up the rock, felt the cool weight of it in his hand, and threw it at Jane. Jane swore at him and ran off.

3rd Person Omniscient:
Dick picked up the rock, felt the cool weight of it in his hand, and threw it at Jane.
Jane stumbled back, a hand to her head. That little twerp. She swore at him and ran off to get her pitbull.

There's lots of books that cover POV in detail, with the pros and cons and examples of each. One you might want to check out is Orson Scott Card's Characters and Viewpoint.

[James D Macdonald]

Something you really don't see a lot of is second person:

<BLOCKQUOTE>You picked up a rock, felt the cool weight of it in your hand, and threw it at Jane. Jane swore at you and ran off.</BLOCKQUOTE>

Consider that there may be a reason why you don't see second person too often. Aside from the Choose Your Own Adventure books, a fad that has happily run its course, I don't recall pure 2nd ever being published at book length.

[James D Macdonald]

Another thought:

A thousand would take six minutes a day for a year... I suspect that it would take more time than that to improve me much as a writer.

If you type 40 words per minute, in that year you will have typed a novel.

[D James]

"Aside from the Choose Your Own Adventure books, a fad that has happily run its course, I don't recall pure 2nd ever being published at book length."

Alas, Jim, they've been back for some time now.

James

[maestrowork]

I don't recall ever reading any 2nd person. But I know they're out there.

There are also variations of 3rd person limited:

1) single POV -- Dick picked up the rock and felt the weight in his hand. He threw it at Jane. She swore at him and walked away.

2) shifting/rotating POV -- Dick picked up the rock and felt the weight in his hand. He threw it at Jane. She swore at him and walked away.
***
Moments later, Jane became very upset with Dick. She called his mother and complained to her.

3) objective (we sometimes call this fly on the wall or camera) -- Dick picked up the rock and bounced it a few times in his hand. He threw it at Jane. She swore at him and walked away.

[James D Macdonald]

Alas, Jim, they've been back for some time now.

Aieeeee! Run away! Run away!

You see a door before you. Do you:

A) Open it (go to page 57)

B) Turn and fight (go to page 96)

C) Throw the flippin' book out the window (go to the bookshelf and get something where the author figured out the best ending for the story)

[drgnlvrljh]

Oh! The Humanity! The Horror!

Shouldn't there be some law against that? :eek

[Dancing Wombat]

Hi all,

De-lurking to mention one novel written entirely in the second person—Tom Robbins's Half Asleep in Frog Pyjamas (Bantam, 1994). It worked for me when I read it, but it did take some getting used to. Assuredly not a Choose Your Own Adventure novel.

That's all. I'll re-lurk now.

[Kate Nepveu]

I have a suggestion--decide if you're going to have an explicit omniscient narrator or not.

[sc211]

Another second person point of view novel, and perhaps the most successful of all, is Jay McInerney's Bright Lights, Big City.

"You are not the kind of guy who would be at a place like this at this time of the morning. But here you are, and you cannot say that the terrain is entirely unfamiliar, although the details are fuzzy."

In this case I thought it actually worked.

And as for the "Choose Your Adventure" books, the reason I hated them as a kid is 1) I always ended up locked in some cave for eternity or with my head cut off or some other pointless fate, and 2) it made the books so dang short.

Also, even when you flipped back and tried to find the right way through the book, to like learn where you made your mistakes, there wasn't any real point to it. Just random events. And we get enough of that in life.

[James D Macdonald]

Thanks for those two references. I've not read either book.

Something for me to do....

[Fillanzea]

If you type 40 words per minute, in that year you will have typed a novel.

Good point!

Typing a novel is not the same thing as writing one...I'd guess that I go at about 10 words per minute when I actually have to think about what I'm writing. But I could probably, in the course of a work day, sketch out a 240-word scene segment in enough detail in my mind that I could type it out without much thought when I sat down to write.

By way of introduction, incidentally...let's see. I've been seriously writing fantasy for three and a half years, have written three and a half and a third novels (the half will remain unfinished--hard drive failure and lack of enthusiasm--and the third is in progress), and have a couple of very small press publications. And I have read all 127 pages of posts since about the time they started; I'm a lurker by nature, though.

[HConn]

I enjoyed Bright Lights, Big City.

[pianoman5]

Another 2nd person novel is Ian Banks' A Song of Stone.

I couldn't finish it. Apart from being a nasty, bleak bit of work in many areas, the device of a first person addressing a kind of memoir to his lover - with 'you' figuring in too many sentences as well as many long, windy monologues - was very distracting, and felt like the experimental device it is.

[sc211]

I’m in the midst of my first sci-fi/fantasy. It actually started out as a regular adventure tale, but due to geographic and cultural necessity, it has to take place on another planet.

What I’m having difficulty with is what I can refer to with Earth language and what needs to be given new names.

I thought I’d have to rename everything, but when I sat down and flipped through some fantasy novels from my shelves, the only unique words were those of wizardry, as with vrondi for elemental spirits, or words borrowed from another culture, as with ashke from the Tylandras people in Mercedes Lackey’s work.

It’s like you see the story from within the culture of the main characters, so that only cultures alien to them are seen as with their own unique language, which is used only for items unique to that culture. (Just as we westerners have adopted the terms spaghetti, katana, and algebra.)

I think what threw me, and the core of the matter, is that it’s a lot different to write fantasy/sci-fi than read it. In reading, you willingly suspend your disbelief to enjoy the tale. In writing it, though, you’re trying to pull stuff out of a hat to make it seem believable. And are checking and re-checking it at every turn. In fact, you could even say you go from being a listener to a liar. And the bigger the lie – “This happened on another planet…” – the more you sweat that you’ll be found out.

Is this an accurate look at writing fantasy/sci-fi? And how have you gotten through it - that feeling of "they're not gonna believe this"?

[dblteam]

I have that problem when writing SF, but not fantasy.

Probably because I have a master's in aerospace engineering ('aero' more than 'space'), I'm constantly second-guessing my science when I write SF. I end up thinking, "Yeah, that could work, but I'll bet there's new research in the field," or "This was a cool theory a few years ago, but don't I remember an article about why it can't work?" and so on. I could sit down and do the research, but I'd spend so much time learning all the cool new science I'd never put words on paper.

So, fantasy. I'm comfortable inventing my science because I have enough background to make it "work", but I don't have to put it up against the work of real experts who know a whole lot more about it than I do. :D

Valerie

[James D Macdonald]

Is this an accurate look at writing fantasy/sci-fi? And how have you gotten through it - that feeling of "they're not gonna believe this"?

You're in my world there. I write mostly SF/Fantasy (with excursions into technothriller, horror, and non-fiction).

Okay -- first, if you're going to lie, only tell one. And make it a big one. Your readers will allow you one whopper.

Second, tell the truth as much as you can. Your readers will be willing to believe in dragons, but they won't stop believing in oxygen. Make the dragonfire work with the physics and chemistry of reality.

Third, you have to be absolutely dead-accurate truthful in the psychological realism. You're telling stories about people. Make those people real.

SF/F are a little bit tougher than the mysteries and romances and such set in the modern every-day world. Not only do you have to tell the story, you have to build the world. And you have to do both at the same time.

My advice -- take some recent award winners and some recent best-sellers, go off somewhere quiet, and analyse the heck out of them. You aren't reading them as a reader now, you're reading them as a writer. See how the author achieved the effects.

<HR>

I found this just today,in one of my magic books (Hugard & Braue's Complete Guide to Card Tricks and Techniques), and thought of y'all:

<BLOCKQUOTE>Amongst card conjurors there is the belief that the expert achieves his results by means of prodigious skill, that his methods call for extraordinary application and tedious practice. The authors cannot stress too strongly that it requires no more practice to perform a sleight correctly than to perform it badly. Where the expert shines is that he has gone through the hard work of thinking out the correct method; he has experimented by the hour in searching for the easiest and best technique. For him it is a labor of love, rewarded by the inner glow which comes when at last he sees how to improve the sleight, or when he devises a clean-cut method of attaining a result in a given trick. It is this secret knowledge which makes him the craftsman he is.
</blockquote>

Substitute the word "writers" for "card conjurors," and "story" for "trick"; the rest falls into place.

[Euan Harvey]

That's a good quote -- very thought provoking.

[Fresie]

Hello, Uncle Jim, hello, everyone.

Sorry I haven't been around much lately, but it's because I use every spare moment to work on this WIP of mine... it goes really fast, it seems to work for a couple of beta readers, but I think I've developed a problem which I can't solve on my own.

I did write it from an outline, but as it's the first draft -- or even rather, a "zero draft", I also tried to write down everything I could think of about the story, every little idea or a plot twist. As a result, I'm faced with lots of scenes and characters that are relevant and move the story forward, but are sort of... motley. My hero meets all sorts of story-appropriate people and does all sorts of plot-related things in all sorts of believable settings, and now I'm facing the task of straightening it all.

For example: the fact that my hero is an actor is determined by the plot. But what on earth possessed me to give him two young physicists as friends? Why physicists? -- I really don't know, has to be some trick of my subconscious. Why can't I decide which one of three possible settings I should use for the second half of the book? In fact, I realise now how many things I should have preplanned in the beginning. I mean, it's all logical, the story isn't a mess of irrelevant things, it's all going in the right direction and characterising people in all the right ways -- it's just that, motley. I realise I'm in need of some core idea (not premise, premise is different) or some common denominator to keep the story going, otherwise my next scene will be on an iceberg between two polar explorers--and sure, for a plot-related reason!:-)

Please, please help...:(

[sc211]

Thanks, Uncle Jim. That bit on conjuring is not only dead-on accurate with what we're doing, but what you said reminded me of this quote from Shelley Winters: "Fooling people isn’t enough. It’s the ability to move them that matters."

The part I’m still having trouble with, though, is time. As on other planets. Ones that have never had any contact with Earth.

For instance, Jupiter has a day of just nine hours, and a year that’s equal to twelve of our years. One couldn’t write from the perspective of a planet like Jupiter and say “We walked for a full day” or “I was married for a year” without us, reading from our own perspective, misunderstanding it. It’s also not likely other planets would have a single moon or that their moon will have a 28-day cycle, so their weeks and months would be different as well.

I guess the answer lies in how I can’t think of one novel that uses an altered time frame. Maybe Arthur C. Clarke or some hard sci-fi writers have done it, but mostly it seems that every author creates some planet that acts just like our own (even with the same gravity and atmosphere), and then uses the same terms of minutes, hours, weeks, months, and years. Summer and winter as well. (Though not Tuesday and October.)

It makes sense in that readers most likely don’t want to be bothered with learning a whole new system of time, and it’s true that I always thought it was distracting when on the old “Battlestar Galactica” series they’d say stuff like “Meet me in ten microns.”

But now that I’ve been studying up on ancient time-keeping to set up something real for this world I’ve created, it’s kind of frustrating to see that others (at least in my limited reading) haven’t addressed the issue. People travel from planet to planet and there’s never any mention of adapting to different lengths of day, even though here on Earth we have to adjust going from one coast to another.

I guess I’m being too scientific about it, in trying to make everything seem totally real and accurate, when all one need do is make the characters and their motivations clear and believable.

Any thoughts on this, or how you resolved it with your own worlds, would be greatly appreciated.

P.S. I just re-read this, and what popped into my head were three valuable words: Keep It Simple. If there's no need to complicate matters of time, as for the plot, then don't. Just like you wouldn't complicate matters with gravity on that planet if it wasn't needed. In fact, like any kid who's trying to deny he broke a window, in trying too hard to lie, you give yourself away. Just act like it's normal and people won't even think of the matter of time.

Methinks my muse is right.

[sc211]

Hi Fresie,

Can't say as I can give any pertinent advice for your book, except to say that when I get that frazzled I find that a long walk can help clear out your head. Just something to give you some distance and perspective and a quiet mind, where some key to your story can come in.

And hey, there's nothing wrong with physicists. I was a physics major myself. If nothing else, they can ponder things too deeply and go on about nothing in irritating ways. But really - you could have them comment on your actor's life in interesting ways, or keep pestering him to do a one-man performance on the life of Neils Bohr, and he snaps back, saying, "Oh yes, I can see it now - A Bohring Evening."

[Fresie]

And hey, there's nothing wrong with physicists.

<img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif" /> <img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif" />

Oh, looks like I said something stupid again. No, all I meant was that there had to be a particuar reason why his friends were physicists. As it went, after the fact I invented an additional plot complication, something about stolen research data, and got my hero (who's an actor-turned-secret agent) involved with it, simply to justify his friends being physicists.

Or is it how one is supposed to work? No, that's why I post this in Uncle Jim's thread, because his method is logic, and I got myself stray too far away from it. I know there should be a certain idea, and everything in the novel should work on it, but how do I determine this idea?

Thank you!

[Nateskate]

Amazing!

I'm jumping in with a question from one of the earlier chapters regarding The Golden Word Syndrome.

Honestly, I think my problem is that I'd let someone else write my book for me if they wanted to. That's pretty pathetic, in that I think I have much to say.

I think I'd like to know where you'd draw a line for us who might be a pushover for an over eager editor who would simply want to make a clone of themselves.

Being that you have so much experience, do editors always cut you the benefit of the doubt, or are there times where you would butt heads?

[James D Macdonald]

But now that I’ve been studying up on ancient time-keeping to set up something real for this world I’ve created, it’s kind of frustrating to see that others (at least in my limited reading) haven’t addressed the issue. People travel from planet to planet and there’s never any mention of adapting to different lengths of day, even though here on Earth we have to adjust going from one coast to another.

You might enjoy my own Mageworlds books, where you'll find two clocks side by side, with local time on one and standard on the other, and terms like "local apparent north."

We assume that everything is in translation anyway, so the use of terms like day, week, month, is fine. We don't use Tuesday and October because they have Earth-specific references -- to the god Tyr, to the eighth month. (Note: Even Tolkien, who was keenly aware of language, slipped up on this from time to time.)

When we, here, on earth, say "I walked all day," we don't say "I walked three Jovian days." The characters refer to their own experiences. One of the ways SF builds worlds is through showing what the characters assume to be true. The readers compare that assumption with their own assumptions.

<HR>

Why are the hero's two friends physicists? Well, were they college roommates? Was the hero stranded overnight on a broken down bus with a bunch of guys coming back from a Physicist convention? Did they shop at the same all-night supermarket? Do they sing in the same choir? Did they serve in the military together?

Why are you friends with the people you know? How did you meet?

Here's advice -- put the book in a drawer for a month. Work on something else. Then read your story aloud, with a red pencil in your hand, to make notes in the margins.

[xander]

For an instance of a successful (and powerful) use of the 2nd person POV, read Keith Roberts' science fiction novel <em>Molly Zero</em>, 1980 British Science Fiction Award nominee and #19 on the 1981 Locus Best Novel poll.

[Fresie]

Why are you friends with the people you know? How did you meet?

Here's advice -- put the book in a drawer for a month. Work on something else. Then read your story aloud, with a red pencil in your hand, to make notes in the margins.


Thank you! I think I've understood something
<img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/ohwell.gif" />

[sc211]

About time on other planets, everything’s translated, of course, as meters to yards, but still… oh, I get it. I was getting technical, saying a Jovian year isn’t a year here, but we’re using the same word for it. But we aren’t – we’re translating a Jovian saying, “I’ve been married for a year” to our own language: “I haven't been sober for twelve friggin’ years."

Still, it’d be nice to see more planets have different cycles of time. Like in Michael Stackpole’s I, Jedi, the hero says, “Are we going to be using Coordinated Galactic Time here or are we going to just work with Yavin’s normal day? The moon’s rotation is slightly faster than that of Coruscant, so keeping on the galactic scale will put us out of sync with the planet.”

That I like – a sort of universal Greenwich Time. In fact, in searching for information, I found a website on calendars, webexhibits.org/calendars...ture.html, (http://webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-future.html,) which not only gives the Star Wars calendar, but one for Mars, as well.

And not to be stickler (though I guess I am), but a character on another planet (with no contact with Earth) can’t really use “month,” which comes from the word “moon,” unless it refers to their own moon’s cycle. We even get the length of our week from the four 7-day quarters of our moon. This is a stumbling block for me since I’m thinking of not using a moon at all, and I’ll have to find another natural cycle. And with no moon, there’s no tides to use, either. Heck, maybe I’ll use two moons…

And hey, Fresie, I was kidding about the physicist thing. We take only affronts to universes personally. :D

“Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.” - Douglas Adams

[sc211]

Uncle Jim -

Was just checking out your Mageworld books, as recommended, and was wondering which one you'd choose to start with.

It looks like Stars Asunder technically comes first, but was written after the others. And then there's Book Four, The Gathering Flame, which is another prequel.

Suggestions?

[James D Macdonald]

Heck, read 'em in the order they were written. That means start with The Price of the Stars (which is a dandy book, by the way, and went through I think seven printings before it finally went out of print). (It'll come back into print when the next Mageworlds book comes out, which will be about a year after I write it....)

You have a different experience depending on where you enter the series, of course.

(And -- for each book I found beta readers who'd never read any of the other books, so as to clear up questions that new readers might have along the way.)

[Jules Hall]

I make it a habit to always read series in the order they were written, these days. This is because I got Asimov's Foundation series out of order, and "Prelude to Foundation" (written last, but chronologically first) contains a spoiler for the major plot twist in "Foundation and Earth".

Incidentally, on the subject of timing systems, "Foundation and Earth" contains an interesting variation on that: unless my memory is deceiving me, one of the criteria the characters use for determining whether a world might be Earth is whether or not its rotation period is roughly "one standard day".

[detante]

And not to be stickler (though I guess I am), but a character on another planet (with no contact with Earth) can’t really use “month,” which comes from the word “moon,” unless it refers to their own moon’s cycle.

This is where world building comes into play. Earth time is based on agricultural and celestial standards. Jovian culture and environment would determine what standards they would use to judge time, if they judge time at all.

On the other hand, if various planets do have contact with one another then they will need to develop a universal standard, such as an atomic clock, to facilitate communication and trade.

Jen

[SpankyMcJedi]

Hello all! I just wanted to offer my own gushing thanks for this thread. I was pointed here by a fellow member of the Critters workshop and have found it to be immensley helpful. Being about 2/3rds of the way through the thread, it may be a bit before I post on any kind of regular basis. One question right off the bat though... I've been working on my novel (for an embarassing length of time) and I've got an outline for the plot that I like. I've done character sketches and backgrounds. I've written about 20k words so far as well. My problem is that I constantly feel the need to revise what I've already written and my progress is stagnating. Its my compulsion. :D Obviously I need to trudge forward somehow. Do I just accept that the first time I put something down much of it could be wrong or misplaced and keep going until THE END and then revise the WHOLE thing?

[sc211]

Hey McJedi,

A good question, and it was covered in depth this summer:

p197.ezboard.com/fabsolut...=621.topic (http://p197.ezboard.com/fabsolutewritefrm3.showMessage?topicID=621.topic)

[SpankyMcJedi]

So, basically its 'do what works for you so long as you're making progress towards finishing it' ? I think thats as good an answer as any.

[sc211]

Twenty years ago, when I was a high school junior, a friend of mine gave me a science fiction book for Christmas. I didn’t think much of the cover, and, having grown up on Star Wars, the words “Hugo” and “Nebula” were new to me, but I said thanks and told him I’d give it a shot.

The novel was Joe Haldeman’s The Forever War, and my only memory of that Christmas season is of freezing in a car in a crowded mall parking lot so that I could read just one more chapter before it got too dark.

Now, as my own Christmas gift to everyone who's contributed to this thread, here’s the link to Haldeman’s website.

home.earthlink.net/~haldeman/index.html (http://home.earthlink.net/~haldeman/index.html)

His FAQ has great advice for writers, and his MIT science fiction writing course syllabus gives his course texts, writing exercises, and has a humorous bit at the bottom called “Grammar: High Crimes and Misdemeanors” which gives some great pointers.

The best piece, though, is his “Longer Autobiographical Sketch.” Print it out and you’ll have twenty pages of one of the best summaries of the life of a SF writer I’ve found.

It’s grittingly honest, it’s funny, it’s a virtual who’s-who of encounters with sci-fi legends, and it covers working with editors, haggling deals, the changes in the sci-fi market, making movies, drugs, and his writing schedule. There’s also his tour in Viet Nam, the Iowa Writer’s Workshop with John Cheever and Raymond Carver, SFLIS, and the time he insulted Steven Speilberg.

Merry Christmas.

[reph]

Still, it’d be nice to see more planets have different cycles of time. Like in Michael Stackpole’s I, Jedi, the hero says, “Are we going to be using Coordinated Galactic Time here or are we going to just work with Yavin’s normal day? The moon’s rotation is slightly faster than that of Coruscant, so keeping on the galactic scale will put us out of sync with the planet.”

Is the character speaking to someone named Bob, by any chance?

[James D Macdonald]

Do I just accept that the first time I put something down much of it could be wrong or misplaced and keep going until THE END and then revise the WHOLE thing?

Allow yourself to put down the not-quite-right word. Allow yourself to type [look this up] or [fix later].

You won't be submitting your first draft... so treat it like a first draft. Use it to block things out, and find out what the book is about.

[James D Macdonald]

Continuing the discussion from <a href="http://p197.ezboard.com/fabsolutewritefrm3.showMessageRange?topicID=257.to pic&start=1941&stop=1960" target="_new">earlier in this thread</a>:

The first two pages of The Street Lawyer, by John Grisham:



===============================

One


The man with the rubber boots stepped into the elevator behind me, but I didn't see him at first. I smelled him though -- the pungent odor of smoke and cheap wine and life on the street without soap. We were alone as we moved upward, and when I finally glanced over I saw the boots, black and dirty and much too large. A frayed and tattered trench coat fell to his knees. Under it, layers of foul clothing bunched around his mid-section, so that he appeared stocky, almost fat. But it wasn't from being well fed; in the wintertime in D.C., the street people wear everything they own, or so it seems.

He was black and aging -- his beard and hair were half-gray and hadn't been washed or cut in years. He looked straight ahead through thick sunglasses, thoroughly ignoring me, and making me wonder for a second why, exactly, I was inspecting him.

He didn't belong. It was not his building, not his elevator, into a place he could afford. The lawyers on all eight floors worked for my firm at hourly rates that still seemed obscene to me even after seven years.

Just another street bum in from the cold. Happened all the time in downtown Washington. But we had security guards to deal with the riffraff.

We stopped at six, and I noticed for the first time that he had not pushed a button, had not selected a floor. He was following me. I made a quick exit, and as I stepped into the splendid marble foyer of Drake & Sweeney I glanced over my shoulder just long enough to see him standing in the elevator, looking at nothing, still ignoring me.

Madam Devier, one of your very resilient receptionists, greeted me with her typical look of disdain. "Watch the elevator," I said.

"Why?"

"Street bum. You may want to call security."

"Those people," she said in her affected French accent.

"Get some disinfectant too."

I walked away, wrestling my overcoat off my shoulders, forgetting the man with the rubber boots. I had nonstop meetings throughout the afternoon, important conferences with important people. I turned the corner and was about to say something to Polly, my secretary, when I heard the first shot.

Madam Devier was standing behind her desk, petrified, staring into the barrel of an awfully long handgun held by our pal the street bum. Since I was the first one to come to her aid, he politely aimed it at me, and I too became rigid.

"Don't shoot," I said, hands in the air. I'd seen enough movies to know precisely what to do.

"Shut up," he mumbled, with a great deal of composure.

There were voices in the hallway behind me. Someone yelled,

=================
One
Chapters are numbered in words, no epigrams, no chapter titles.

The man with the rubber boots stepped into the elevator behind me, but I didn't see him at first.
Two characters in the first sentence: the man with the rubber boots, and "me," the narrator. Setting: an elevator. Description: rubber boots. Off and running in sentence one. First person POV.

I smelled him though -- the pungent odor of smoke and cheap wine and life on the street without soap.

More description, both of the man in the rubber boots (someone who smells like a street person) and the narrator (someone who notices).

We were alone as we moved upward, and when I finally glanced over I saw the boots, black and dirty and much too large.

More description. This will be an important character. As the elevator moves upward through the building, the narrator's eyes move upward on the street person. This is the first time we see the boots, even though they were mentioned in the first sentence.


A frayed and tattered trench coat fell to his knees.

Up the street person's body. Building a picture. Still early enough in that if the reader has any misapprehensions about what the character looks like, they can be easily corrected.

Under it, layers of foul clothing bunched around his mid-section, so that he appeared stocky, almost fat.

Is 'almost fat' a mistake here? The use of the word 'almost' can be a sign of lazy writing: e.g. He looked almost happy. That's asking the reader to do the writer's job of finding the right word. But this, here, is using the phrase 'almost fat' to define the earlier term 'stocky.' This is clarification, not sloppiness.

But it wasn't from being well fed; in the wintertime in D.C., the street people wear everything they own, or so it seems.
Giving the location (Washington D.C.) and the season (winter). We're still in the elevator, but the outside world is being defined.

He was black and aging -- his beard and hair were half-gray and hadn't been washed or cut in years.
Black and aging. Notice the parallelism with the boots: black and dirty. We've gotten all the way up to the man's face. Nice progression, and mild suspense as we're wondering and being told what the man looks like. This falls in line with the principle that we answer the readers' questions a moment before they ask them.

He looked straight ahead through thick sunglasses, thoroughly ignoring me, and making me wonder for a second why, exactly, I was inspecting him.
Back to the narrator's character. Also a bit of mystery about the boot-man. Sunglasses inside an elevator? And his eyes are concealed.


He didn't belong.
Summarizing the previous paragraph, and bringing the point home for the deaf old lady in the back row.

It was not his building, not his elevator, into a place he could afford.

More countersinking.

The lawyers on all eight floors worked for my firm at hourly rates that still seemed obscene to me even after seven years.
Okay, we're going into a law office. More on the narrator's character -- he's making a lot of money, and he's uncomfortable with that. He's been there a while -- seven years. We presume that the narrator is a lawyer. Ambiguous whether he owns the firm.


Just another street bum in from the cold.

Reinforcing that it's winter. Reinforcing that this is a street person. Bringing up the possibility that this isn't the first time it's happened. "Just another..."?

Happened all the time in downtown Washington.

Answering the question. Happens all the time. Momentarily unpleasant, but nothing to remark about. But our narrator is remarking about it, so ... we're expecting something odd to happen. New source of suspense.

But we had security guards to deal with the riffraff.

More on the building, more on the characters, more on how this is a known problem with a known solution, but ... the hint that this time security guards won't work.

We stopped at six, and I noticed for the first time that he had not pushed a button, had not selected a floor.

Location is specified, and another odd detail is supplied.

He was following me.
Uh-oh. Very simple declarative sentence. Fast, short, lots of impact.

I made a quick exit, and as I stepped into the splendid marble foyer of Drake & Sweeney I glanced over my shoulder just long enough to see him standing in the elevator, looking at nothing, still ignoring me.
The longest sentence we've seen so far -- a bit of a rest for the reader after the shorter, choppier, more suspenseful opening bits. We're told the name of the law firm, and given more on the relationship that's been growing between tthese two people. (Still don't know if the narrator is male or female.)

Madam Devier, one of your very resilient receptionists, greeted me with her typical look of disdain.
A third character, with a bit of characterization.


"Watch the elevator," I said.
"Why?"
"Street bum. You may want to call security."

Dialog, power relationship, and still business as usual.
"Those people," she said in her affected French accent.
Characterization.

"Get some disinfectant too."
Characterization of the narrator.

I walked away, wrestling my overcoat off my shoulders, forgetting the man with the rubber boots.
Suspense builds, along with tiny action detail.
I had nonstop meetings throughout the afternoon, important conferences with important people.

Important people, as opposed to the unimportant bum. Yet the bum has had a lot of ink so far, and the important people have had none. The bum is important, and will be involved in nonstop meetings, betcha.

I turned the corner and was about to say something to Polly, my secretary, when I heard the first shot.

Woo hoo! The day has just gotten weird. The first shot implies a second shot. We've also met another character, Polly, and gotten a bit more of a hint about the narrator.

Madam Devier was standing behind her desk, petrified, staring into the barrel of an awfully long handgun held by our pal the street bum.

I wonder how he saw that? He's turned the corner, after all. His heading back isn't described; it's not important right now. We've gotten back to the main character (the bum). We've introduced something that makes the bum important. "God made men; Colonel Colt made them equal."

Since I was the first one to come to her aid, he politely aimed it at me, and I too became rigid.
Our narrator is either brave or foolish.

"Don't shoot," I said, hands in the air.
Dialog and action.

I'd seen enough movies to know precisely what to do.
Sense of unreality. Comparing this to a movie. (It would have been an error for the author to have said "I've read enough books." That would remind the reader that this is just a novel.)

"Shut up," he mumbled, with a great deal of composure.

I'll let him get away with using a 'said' word. More characterization.

There were voices in the hallway behind me. Someone yelled,

'There were' is a weak opening. This will contrast with the very strong bit with the handgun we just saw, and give the reader a break. 'Someone' is also indistinct.

Now... we're at the end of page two.

Show of hands, how many want to know what happens next?

[sc211]

Great line-by-line commentary. A few months ago I visited a friend, and as he got ready, I picked up this book and started reading. I was curious, 'cause I'd never read Grisham before, and I liked how it went down - smooth and easy. And yeah, I did keep reading till it was time to go.

I didn't notice then how Grisham started with the boots and worked up. Is that an old trick, or does it come from cinema, where they focus on Eastwood's boots coming through the saloon door, or the Terminator's boot stepping off his motorcycle, and then slowly panning up?

I also liked how the lawyer himself wasn't too keen on his work or co-workers - that it allowed him some understanding of his adversary.

The only part that glitched for me was when he stepped out of the elevator, talked, walked away, and only then did the homeless person appear. Because the lawyer made "a quick exit," and no other button was pushed, maybe there was time, but I was surprised that the door held open that long.

This is where I often get bogged down myself, and I remember Eudora Welty saying the hardest thing was getting people in and out of rooms.

And yeah, that "first" shot is a dramatic punch. In fact, "when I heard the first shot" even sounds better than "when I heard a shot."

Finally, while it's not clear how he sees the guy once around the corner, isn't it a good shortcut that when someone hears a noise, you don't have to say that they turned to see it?

I was just inside the door, getting a drink, when the sound of hooves echoed down the street.
They were coming straight for us - Morgan in the lead.

or

I was just inside the door, getting a drink, when the sound of hooves echoed down the street.
I turned around and looked out the door.
They were coming straight for us - Morgan in the lead.

If the first version is better, maybe Grisham just extended that allowance, so that we know he turned around and walked back towards the main desk.

[maestrowork]

I'm wondering though, if he weren't Grisham, would we have taken his prose/plot apart if it were posted in SYW...

;)

For example, our whole debate on "character descriptions."

[Gala]

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The man with the rubber boots stepped into the elevator behind me, but I didn't see him at first<hr></blockquote>

I've used this sentence to demonstrate poor POV technique. The narrator says he didn't see the guy, yet he indicates he sees a man, and he sees boots.

Regardless, I read the book and enjoyed it.

[maestrowork]

Yup, if it were something in SYW, I bet I would have suggested it be changed to:

I didn't see him at first, but the man with the rubber boots stepped into the elevator behind me.

But I agree. Grisham may not be a master in the technical things such at POV, but he's a master storyteller. He draws you in immediately. No wasted words. And he sure knows the thing about "do what works."

[James D Macdonald]

I've used this sentence to demonstrate poor POV technique.

I can't say that I agree. Do you have a problem with "The first time I saw Fred he was standing outside a bar, his hat pulled too low over his eyes, looking like a man with nowhere to go and in a hurry to get there."

Now the narrator there doesn't know Fred's name at that moment, but that doesn't stop him. In first person past tense, the narrator can use any name he wants for a character, provided it's something that he learns between the time the character is introduced and the point where he's telling the story to we the readers.

When the Knight with the Singing Sword walked through my door he wasn't yet a knight. He didn't have the Singing Sword, either. He was just a punk kid -- or so we all thought. Those of us who hadn't seen him move.

[Gala]

Yeah I know.

Grisham could've ordered the sentence better for the same effect. The fact he leads off describing someone he can't see is confusing, imo.

I've come to accept his quirks as his style.

[maestrowork]

But isn't it confusing for newbies to begin with about POVs? Here, you have 1st person (or 3rd limited) when you're not supposed to report something the POV character shouldn't know at the time. However, since it's in past tense, does that mean the character can report on anything he wants because everything has already happened, provided that the narrator made it clear how he knew (afterwards)? In essence, something like:

Joe grinned behind me and high-fived with Bob, but I didn't see that at first, until Mary told me afterwards.

I remember a professor once told me (many years ago) that something like that is still considered a POV inconsistency -- it takes the narrative out of the current moment, even in past tense. His example was that in my WIP, I wrote something like:

"I watched the bird glide above me. The sun was warm on my bronzed face..."

He said, technically it's all right because the narrator knows what his skin color was. But practically it takes the sensory away from the moment, meaning that it requires an external reference at that moment to observe the narrator's face.

Anyhoo...

I still think it's somewhat a poor construction, and thus stand by my original suggestion to switch the sentence clauses in Grisham's case.

[drgnlvrljh]

I'm wondering though, if he weren't Grisham, would we have taken his prose/plot apart if it were posted in SYW...

I wouldn't mind someone taking mine apart that way. I would know even better what worked, and what didn't ;)

[Crusader]

The man with the rubber boots stepped into the elevator behind me, but I didn't see him at first.

i'm not sure if the scrutiny being given to this sentence is misplaced or correctly placed... on the one hand, it's only one sentence. On the other hand, it IS the first sentence.

Either way, i note that the true problem is that the spatial orientation of the characters is way off: an elevator typically has one set of doors, so any occupants/new arrivals would be more than likely to see each other.

Yes, i can imagine that perhaps someone could stand behind the protagonist and follow them in, staying out of line-of-sight... maybe a very quiet 'someone' following a very distracted protagonist. But here, the someone is a man in rubber boots; the protagonist would have to be deaf not to hear the squeaking.

As such, i can only conclude that Mr. Grisham's editor was lax in his duty. Correct forms for the sentence might be as follows:

It was hard to avoid staring at the man with the rubber boots as i boarded the elevator.

or

The elevator doors opened, and a man with rubber boots stepped onboard, then moved to a spot in the back.

or

As i walked towards the elevator, i saw a man with rubber boots standing nearby; when i entered, he followed.

[James D Macdonald]

I think that what Grisham was trying to do was make "The man in the rubber boots" the first five words of the novel.

The guy in the boots is a main, if not the main, character. (I'm not certain, from these first two pages, that he isn't the street lawyer of the title. He's certainly a street person.)

How does everyone feel about:

<Blockquote>The man with the rubber boots was standing in the elevator behind me, but I didn't notice him at first.</BLOCKQUOTE>

Better?

(Notice has about the same meaning as one meaning of see, but it has two syllables to see's one.)

"Was standing" is much less active than "stepped into."

[Risseybug]

But then you lose the effect of the man actually entering the elevator behind the narrator, which is what the first sentence was saying. I guess if you are picking up the story with both persons already in the elevator, it works.

But, if you want to have the narrator getting into the elevator being your first action, then no, I don't think it works as well. But that's just me.

[reph]

The man with the rubber boots stepped into the elevator behind me, but I didn't see him at first.

I agree with those who said there's something wrong here. An "and" instead of a "but" would have helped. Outside the elevator, waiting in line, the narrator might plausibly not see a man behind him.

When people enter an elevator, they push a button (or check that their button is already lit) and stay facing the front, where the doors and buttons are. Or they turn to face into the elevator's interior. Or they go stand against a wall and face forward or into the interior. Or, if the elevator is crowded, they move toward the back and face forward. Nobody takes a place against a wall and faces that wall. Consequently, you see everyone who enters after you, unless you're still messing with the buttons, or sneezing or reading or adjusting your Walkman or something. The narrator works in this building; he wouldn't take long to find and push his floor button. So "at first" can't mean more than a few seconds.

Maybe Grisham meant to suggest that the narrator isn't alert enough and this will get him in trouble later? Saying "but I didn't see him" creates a contrast between external reality and what the narrator is aware of. Too big a gap there and anyone would be in for some surprises.

I think you can write "My cousin got married in August and I didn't hear about it until October" without breaking POV, but it subtracts some immediacy. In cinematic terms, you then have a long shot, not a close-up.

[maestrowork]

Couldn't he just frigging start with:

The man with the rubber boots stepped into the elevator behind me. I hadn't noticed him at first, but I'd smelled him...

That would keep him in a tight POV and the moment. And I agree, although we understand the story here, there's something intinctively not right about the logistics in the elevator....

Also, generally I find Grisham, as illustrated here, a pretty good narrator, but he tells too much sometimes, or explains a little too much instead of letting the readers "get it." To me, I think narration such as "he didn't belong" is clumsy and unnecessary. He sets up the situation and mystery well enough -- no need to extra verbiage to tell the same thing. He should trust the readers more.

[James D Macdonald]

"See" also means "notice," "be aware of," or "pay attention to."

[maestrowork]

Yes, but "see" can also be taken literally and in this case, the context suggests the literal meaning of "see." If "choosing the right word" is a guideline to follow, he should have used "notice" instead of "see" to avoid any ambiguity.

Boy, I sound like I'm in an Eng Lit class...

[detante]

The man with the rubber boots was standing in the elevator behind me, but I didn't see him at first.

Not only does this sentence make it clear that the man with the rubber boots is the focus of the scene, it also gives you a sense of the author's style and, as it is written in first person, it tells you something about the POV character. You know right away that this is not an English professor from an Ivy League college.

Say the line out loud. Add the second line:

I smelled him though . . .

Listen to the wording and the rhythm. This sentence was written the way the POV character would say it if they were telling you the tale over drinks. It has a friendly quality to it that lets the reader feel sympathetic to this character. Who hasn't had the unpleasant experience of being trapped in a small public space with an odoriferous stranger?

And it's important that we feel sympathetic to this character as early as possible because in the next few paragraphs they shows a serious lack of empathy for those less fortunate.

Just another street bum in from the cold. Happened all the time in downtown Washington. But we had security guards to deal with the riffraff.

At least, that's my opinion based on the text we have available. I confess, I have not read this or any other Grisham novel.

Jen

[maestrowork]

I do think Uncle Jim's line-by-line analysis is very interesting and informative. We can learn quite a lot of what works and what doesn't by looking at other people's work (best selling novels, for example) analytically.

I've started a little exercise in SYW: p197.ezboard.com/fabsolut...=571.topic (http://p197.ezboard.com/fabsolutewritefrm31.showMessage?topicID=571.topic)

I think it'd be interesting to see how we can use the same kind of analysis on each other's works. What do you think?

[Crusader]

Listen to the wording and the rhythm. This sentence was written the way the POV character would say it if they were telling you the tale over drinks. It has a friendly quality to it that lets the reader feel sympathetic to this character. Who hasn't had the unpleasant experience of being trapped in a small public space with an odoriferous stranger?

i do see your point, and to be honest, i might imagine anyone who read the scene the first time "got the point" and kept reading, as i did. The quibbles here are arising because we're analyzing the prose, obviously.

However... since we ARE analysing... i say, it's probably not the best idea for any writer to even think for a second that "as long as my flow is adequate, i don't need to dot my I's and cross my T's." Maybe if the book is read once and tossed into the shelf or the recycle pile, then precision is less imperative... just as long as the reader doesn't put the book down during that 'precious' first reading.

But, does any author honestly want to create material that doesn't hold up to basic scrutiny?

With all that in mind, i just don't like the way this opening scene is constructed. It seems fundamentally flawed underneath the style, the flow, the prose--and not only as far as the spatial problem or the unclear wording or whatnot. The main trouble is that the author and editor seem to have forgotten to take reality into account, as far how a metropolitan building and vicinity operate.

-We aren't told where the elevator is located; is it in a parking garage, or a lobby? A vagrant might sneak into a poorly monitored parking garage, but that would be very unlikely to happen in a typical corporate lobby. The lack of this detail makes it hard to guage the credibility of the scene.

-We aren't told about the area: a seedy part of town might be infested with vagrants, but ironically that might imply better measures and a higher awareness to keeping them out... while a higher-scale commercial zone wouldn't have many vagrants in the first place, so any in the area would draw a higher reaction. Again, the lack of this detail makes it hard to gauge the credibility of the scene.

-We are told that somehow vagrants "come in all the time", yet we're also told that "there are security guards to deal with them". So... these guards aren't deployed at the points of street access to the lobby/parking garage/elevators/whathaveyou? This seems like a baldfaced error.

-We are told that the protagonist first detects the intruder by smell, but as noted the footwear would more likely attract initial attention, especially as they're alone in a non-noisy vicinity. Another glaring error.

Perhaps these seem like nitpicky details. But ask: if these problems arose in the first few minutes of a movie or televsion show, wouldn't they stand out badly? Imagine an episode of "NYPD Blue" or "Law and Order", where big-city corporate buildings are often featured. Do vagrants typically surface in plain sight around the buildings, cold weather or not? Do parking garages and lobbies to law firms typically lack security? Do guards typically lurk far from points of entry?

If the answer is 'no' to these simple inquiries, then the man in the rubber boots wouldn't have reached the upper floors of the law building... and therefore the book dies a subtle death on the first page.

[James D Macdonald]

You're allowed one whopper per book (whether it be space aliens or street bums in office buildings). If you're telling a whopper, the first page is a great place for it.

Literal meanings aren't the only things that authors have to balance. There's also the connotations of words, and the words' sounds. Then there's sentence rhythm. You have to balance it all.

[Crusader]

You're allowed one whopper per book (whether it be space aliens or street bums in office buildings). If you're telling a whopper, the first page is a great place for it.

Plausible. My questions would be... why tell any if they can be avoided? And, is it best to strain the suspension of disbelief on a first page set in a stable, predictable environment?

(An example: with science fiction, an entire sf story is a 'whopper', in a way, since it demands that the reader accept the fictional science involved--aliens, FTL travel, etc--right from the first sentence. Thus, there is room to stretch a yarn, so to speak. By contrast, your average thriller set in everyday New York has to play by set groundrules, and thus has much less margin for plausible deviation from the expected unless that deviation is well-explained.)


Literal meanings aren't the only things that authors have to balance. There's also the connotations of words, and the words' sounds. Then there's sentence rhythm. You have to balance it all.

Certainly. i might draw a comparison with computer programming; i had a brief chat with a coder in particular who was dithering over whether to make a significant change in his ongoing project. When i tried to help by asking him what the point of the changes would be, he responded that they would be primarily aesthetic... he places a high value on cleanly-written code that looks pleasing to the programming eye. Yet, he also valued the simple efficiency of the code he had already written, and so was loathe to commit to extensive changes just to 'make it look better'. As the issue was black-and-white--either make the change, or not--there wasn't a grey area to balance the extremes, thus he found it tough to make up his mind.

An author's struggle is similar, it's a balance between crafting good prose versus simply communicating an entertaining story. Ideally, one would strike a balance between both, so that the story would leap to life in the reader's mind while still showcasing a concise, elegant wordsmithing.

Relating all this back to Grisham's opening page... i think it does adequately as far as communicating the point, but i have to dock it severely for the plotting problems. On a second read, the apparent errors make the point seem hard to swallow.

As far as his crafting of the prose... well, his style had a rocky start in the very first sentence, since there's a clear bit of mangling in the syntax. But in general, it recovers well enough thereafter to suffice in a workmanlike way.

[JimMorcombe]

To quote U.J. - use it if it works.

I have been slagging Grisham lately, even though I'm a fan, but I've got to say, this openning works.

All of the efforts to tighten it up just seem to lose something.

As for not describing the elevator and the surroundings in full, I think this is deliberate. Grisham knows how to get the reader to fill in the gaps. He could easily have given us endless details, but that slows down the story and he can't afford to do this in the openning of a book.

I think this opening is really amazing. It doesn't have what I call a big hook. It relies on every sentence being interesting enough for the reader to continue on to the next. He just sucks us in with line after line of interesting characterisation.

If an author has a big hook in paragraph one, then the author can afford to have a few slow paragraphs. A good murder or mystery in the first paragraph will keep the reader going for a few pages while the writer establishes the story.

Grisham doesn't do this. He gets away with tight writing and characterisation.

[pdr]

But perfect grammar and grammatically perfect sentences are not necessarily 'good writing'.

If, as writers, we only concentrate on pleasing other writers and not on getting the story we're telling written down as honestly as we can then the story suffers.

Whilst I don't like Grisham's type of 'legal' book very much I think that he wrote a very effective opening. Read it aloud. Listen to the rhythms. That 'but' is a strong beat. You get a clear idea of the sort of man the POV character is. You don't need more details yet. You've had just enough to keep you reading and wanting to know more. Clever writing!

[solokha]

I agree to pdr here. Good writing. I don't care for grammar in such cases

[maestrowork]

I don't dispute Grisham is a good storyteller and he has a keen sense of what works in his particular genre (incidentally, he writes differently in his "other" stuff such as A Painted House, which ironically has a very slow start). And I sure am not bashing him here. But aren't we just a bit hero worshiping? I think recently he's become somewhat a lazy writer (just my opinions, of course). For example, Skipping Christmas opens well and draws me in right away, but it just fizzles -- and I mean fizzle -- by mid-book and the whole thing is very unrealistic to me, even as a satire.

I don't care for grammar in such cases
I'm sorry, but that's a wrong thing to say to writers.



p.s. I don't think an edit like the following would "ruin" the opening:

The man with the rubber boots stepped into the elevator behind me, and I didn't notice him at first.

[James D Macdonald]

Writers earn the ability to start their current works slow by ending their last works strong.

The man with the rubber boots stepped into the elevator behind me, and I didn't notice him at first.

I'd go with 'but' rather than 'and.'

[detante]

But aren't we just a bit hero worshiping?

I don't read Grisham, so I feel safe in saying no to that question. If anything, I sense a bit of star-bashing.

I doubt there is a single published book that would withstand scrutiny by a group of writers. While there are standards, writing a good story is still a subjective endeavor. There will always be something to quibble about--such as the use of the word "notice" vs. "see" or using "and" instead of "but".

The real question here is did you want to turn the page? Clearly some found Grisham's choice of words a hindrance to the story. Lesson to be learned there. You can't please everyone all the time. There reaches a point when you have to resist the urge to write by committee and trust your own voice.

Jen

[Risseybug]

I don't this this is so much bashing as it is learning. We, as writers, are playing around with something already established to see how it becomes something different based on small changes.

Personally, I'm not a big Grisham fan. Just not what I like to read. But I am enjoying the "Masters Class" that Jim strives to give. By pulling apart someone else's work and seeing what makes it tick, makes our writing stronger.

[maestrowork]

The real question here is did you want to turn the page? Clearly some found Grisham's choice of words a hindrance to the story. Lesson to be learned there. You can't please everyone all the time. There reaches a point when you have to resist the urge to write by committee and trust your own voice.

Is "turning the page" the only criterion of a good book, though?

I stand by my original question: What if Grisham were not a famous writer (say, he disguised himself as Maestrowork on AW) and posted his WIP on SYW?

[James D Macdonald]

Please remember that the smallest unit of meaning in our stories isn't the sentence, it's the paragraph.

(Paragraphs can consist of nothing more than a fragment of a word, but still....)

So let's look at that whole first paragraph:

<BLOCKQUOTE>The man with the rubber boots stepped into the elevator behind me, but I didn't see him at first. I smelled him though -- the pungent odor of smoke and cheap wine and life on the street without soap. We were alone as we moved upward, and when I finally glanced over I saw the boots, black and dirty and much too large. A frayed and tattered trench coat fell to his knees. Under it, layers of foul clothing bunched around his mid-section, so that he appeared stocky, almost fat. But it wasn't from being well fed; in the wintertime in D.C., the street people wear everything they own, or so it seems.</BLOCKQUOTE>

Taken as a whole this is a physical description of one main character. (I also note this time around that the street person is wearing a trenchcoat, that is, the lawyer's uniform. I wonder if he'll turn out to be a lawyer who's down on his luck?)

This paragraph deals with appearances. "He appeared" ... "it seems." To me that suggests a contrast with reality.

Once we have the bum with a handgun in the lobby of a law office, and the shooting starts, we won't have a lot of time for descriptions.

Could this book have profitably started with our narrator hearing the shot, and coming around the corner to see the bum facing Madam Devier?

[detante]

I stand by my original question: What if Grisham were not a famous writer (say, he disguised himself as Maestrowork on AW) and posted his WIP on SYW?

I would ask the same about Uncle Jim's work.

[HConn]

HTML Comments are not allowed

[maestrowork]

Could this book have profitably started with our narrator hearing the shot, and coming around the corner to see the bum facing Madam Devier?

Some people would argue that the book might start better with the shooting. I personally prefer the way he started it now, by describing the bum and the immediate events leading up to the shooting.

Again, what works? Some people may argue that you should not start a book describing a character or a setting. They'd prefer the book starts with the shooting, then rolls back to describe the bum and what the narrator knows about him...

On the other hand, some people may think it's important that the books starts with the narrator noticing the bum.... perhaps that knowledge is important later on, and it's sloppy to have to backtrack through the action.

That's why writing is an art. It's up for debate and interpretation.

[James D Macdonald]

It would be torn apart by people who think they know better but don't.

Tell you what, HConn -- how about post two pages from either a) a published work, or b) an unpublished manuscript, without telling anyone which it is, right here, and see what we have to say?

[maestrowork]

Writers are not our targets. Readers are. Does the reader like it? Does the reader care? That's what matters.

But isn't it subjective? For each reader who loves his book, there's someone who doesn't. What are the criteria? Book reviews? Sales? But for a writer as huge as he is, would there be any fair assessment at all? I mean, seriously, Grisham could write crap and still a million people will buy his book. So where is the objective assessment?

Beside, this is a writer's board. I think we need to make sure that we are consistent in our standards. I mean, if Maestrowork writes the same thing and posts it on SYW, he's not going to get the same treatment as someone who is Grisham? I mean if it's one of our works, people will point out "the plot is not realistic" or "the POV is sloppy" etc. etc. But since it's Grisham, we say "he's allowed to have one big whopper." And if we say otherwise, we're called "we don't know any better"?

*stepping down from soapbox*

[James D Macdonald]

But since it's Grisham, we say "he's allowed to have one big whopper."

Actually, I think I've been saying that since long before Grisham came under discussion.

[Crusader]

@HConn:
Where is this quote from? Did anyone actually say this, or are you trying to put words in their mouth? Maybe I just missed it, but putting quotes around something no one has said is dishonest (unintentionally so, I'm sure).

Eh, let me provide the context. The forum user Detante first said:

Listen to the wording and the rhythm. This sentence was written the way the POV character would say it if they were telling you the tale over drinks...

i read this to be a critique that supported Grisham's method, based on the method's flow; i find the word "flow" is a reasonable way of encompassing "wording and rhythm", yes?

So, my response went on to agree that the piece does flow well enough as a page-turner. However, as i find that the first page has plotting problems, i went on to note that good flow wouldn't be an excuse to gloss over important details, and i phrased that point as:

... it's probably not the best idea for any writer to even think for a second that "as long as my flow is adequate, i don't need to dot my I's and cross my T's".

Thus my statement was clearly describing a hypothetical, potential attitude that i was warning against. The entire idea is that i do worry about possibly overlooking function for the sake of form, since i do it myself and have seen it in too many creative works.

(e.g. the movies that have rhythm enough to cover the plot holes and keep you in your seat on a first view, then fall apart thereafter--or the novels that begin with silly or lazy contrivances that are disguised by a lively flow.)

[detante]

Tell you what, HConn -- how about post two pages from either a) a published work, or b) an unpublished manuscript, without telling anyone which it is, right here, and see what we have to say?

I'm not HConn, but will this do?

-----------------------

He shouldn’t have taken the shortcut.

Bahzell Bahnakson realized that the instant he heard the sounds drifting down the inky-dark cross corridor. He’d had to keep to the back ways used only by the palace servants—and far more numerous slaves—if he wanted to visit Brandark without the Guard’s knowledge, for he was too visible to come and go openly without being seen. But he shouldn’t have risked the shortcut just to avoid the more treacherous passages of the old keep.

He stood in an ill-lit hall heavy with the stink of its sparse torches (the expensive oil lamps were saved for Churnazh and his “courtiers”), and his mobile, foxlike ears strained at the faint noises. Then they flattened in recognition, and he cursed. Such sounds were none of his business, he told himself, and keeping clear of trouble was. Besides, they were far from the first screams he’d heard in Navahk . . . and there’d been nothing a prince of rival Hurgrum could do about the others, either.

He squeezed his dagger hilt, and his jaw clenched with the anger he dared not show his “hosts.” Bahzell had never considered himself squeamish, even for a hradani, but that was before his father sent him here as an envoy. As a hostage, really, Bahzell admitted grimly. Prince Bahnak’s army had crushed Navahk and its allies, yet Hurgrum was only a single city-state. She lacked the manpower to occupy her enemies’ territories, though many a hradani chieftain would have let his own realm go to ruin by trying to add the others to it.

But Bahnak was no ordinary chieftain. He knew there could be no lasting peace while Churnazh lived, yet he was wise enough to know what would happen if he dispersed his strength in piecemeal garrisons, each too weak to stand alone. He could defeat Navahk and its allies in battle; to conquer them he needed time to bind the allies his present victories had attracted to him, and he’d bought that time by tying Churnazh and his cronies up in a tangle of treaty promises, mutual defense clauses, and contingencies a Purple Lord would have been hard put to unra-vel. Half a dozen mutually suspicious hradani warlords found the task all but impossible, and to make certain they kept trying rather than resorting to more direct (and traditional) means of resolution, Bahnak had insisted on an exchange of hostages. It was simply Bahzell’s ill fortune that Navahk, as the most powerful of Hurgrum’s opponents, was entitled to a hostage from Hurgrum’s royal family.

Bahzell understood, but he wished, just this once, that he could have avoided the consequences of being Bahnak’s son. Bad enough that he was a Horse Stealer, towering head and shoulders above the tallest of the Bloody Sword tribes and instantly identifiable as an outsider. Worse that Hurgrum’s crushing victories had humiliated Navahk, which made him an instantly hated outsider. Yet both of those things were only to be expected, and Bahzell could have lived with them, if only Navahk weren’t ruled by Prince Churnazh, who not only hated Prince Bahnak (and his son), but despised them as degenerate, over-civilized weaklings, as well. His cronies and hangers-on aped their prince’s attitude and, predictably, each vied with the other to prove his contempt was deeper than any of his fellows’.

So far, Bahzell’s hostage status had kept daggers out of his back and his own sword sheathed, but no hradani was truly suited to the role of diplomat, and Bahzell had come to suspect he was even less suited than most. It might have been different somewhere else, but holding himself in check when Bloody Swords tossed out insults that would have cost a fellow Horse Stealer blood had worn his temper thin. He wondered, sometimes, if Churnazh secretly wanted him to lose control, wanted to drive Bahzell into succumbing to the Rage in order to free himself from the humiliating treaties? Or was it possible Churnazh truly believed his sneer that the Rage had gone out of Hurgrum, leaving her warriors gutless as water? It was hard to be sure of anything where the Navahkan was concerned, but two things were certain as death. He hated and despised Prince Bahnak, and his contempt for the changes Bahnak had wrought in Hurgrum was boundless.

-----------------------

Thoughts?

[detante]

Listen to the wording and the rhythm. This sentence was written the way the POV character would say it if they were telling you the tale over drinks...

"as long as my flow is adequate, i don't need to dot my I's and cross my T's".

Perhaps I should have made it more obvious that a first person POV does and should play by different rules. The narrative must be told in the voice of the POV character, poor grammar and all.

[Crusader]

@detante:

i'm starting to think we're speaking at cross-purposes. My comment doesn't reallly address grammar or style of narration, since i would actually agree with you that the first-person narrator's "inner voice" would determine those things. i'm addressing plot problems caused by writing the narrator's viewpoint in such a way that the reader's suspension of disbelief is hampered.

To go back to your example: let's say you, detante, were the lawyer, i'm your drinking companion, and you're relating the tale. You would literally be speaking to me in dialogue, not first-person narration, so there would be a much different flow of the wording to begin with.

But most importantly, you would be tailoring the story to me, i.e. taking into account how much i know about the setting and such. Think about it: if i've never seen your office, how would i know the layout of your elevator access? Thus, you'd likely start by saying something like...

"Yeah, so i got out of my car in the parking garage, wasn't looking forward to another long day, didn't get enough sleep last night... in fact, i was almost zoning out while waiting for the elevator. So i get on, and i was like so out of it, i didn't even SEE the weirdo--he must have zipped in behind me during the second i turned around. But man, i sure smelled him after a minute or two."

My gripe is simply that the first two pages of the novel are in a bit of a hurry to get going, so they omit certain details of how and why and where. It works the first time through, but the second read makes me say "hey, wait a minute, how the heck did the bum get in there? Was it a parking garage? Where was the security?"

And i speak from experience; i've worked in and near corporate buildings in my area that had a zero percent chance of any vagrant curling up in the foyer, plus a low chance of intruders overall, and yet the security was very strict anyway: a guard sitting at a desk with a sign-in sheet, backed by cameras over the lobby, all placed between the front doors and the elevators.

So, how could i reasonably believe that a building with a history of vagrant problems, plus a security force on-hand to deal with them, would let them still get to the elevators so easily? To make me believe, i need details: say, the setting for the elevator is a low-rent parking garage with a landlord who won't spring for security. Then it fits together and i have no complaints.

And of course everything i've said is based only on the first pages. If later on the novel throws me my details, i suppose i could let the author off the hook. i just don't want to be treated as if apparent loopholes are perfectly fine as long as the story is entertaining, 'cos to me... they aren't.

[Crusader]

i've restricted myself to the first paragraphs.

* * *

He shouldn’t have taken the shortcut.

Bahzell Bahnakson realized that the instant he heard the sounds drifting down the inky-dark cross corridor.

Bahzell Bahnakson. i can't visualize what on earth a person with this name would resemble. To see what i mean, try this...

"Jose Gutierrez realized that the instant..."
-Hispanic person, right?

Or:
"Sergei Monya realized that the instant..."
-Russian person, right?

Caricatures, sure, but at least it's something. Whereas 'Bahzell' just draws a blank, so i can't picture who is standing in the corridor.

However, there's a saving grace; the area is dark, right? So rearrange the order of description; describe the corridor as dark, first, and then describe 'Bahzell' as a dark shape. That way, the reader isn't distracted by trying to place a face to the name.


He’d had to keep to the back ways used only by the palace servants-and far more numerous slaves-if he wanted to visit Brandark without the Guard’s knowledge, for he was too visible to come and go openly without being seen.

"He'd had"? That alone did not work for me (one peeve is had had constructions, they just look ridiculous), and the rest of the sentence felt poorly structured.

Try: "The trip through these back corridors--used mainly by the palace's servants and numerous slaves--had been risky in the first place, but utterly necessary for a well-known person as himself to visit Brandark without the Guard's knowledge."


But he shouldn’t have risked the shortcut just to avoid the more treacherous passages of the old keep.

Adequate, but i would rewrite it.


He stood in an ill-lit hall heavy with the stink of its sparse torches (the expensive oil lamps were saved for Churnazh and his “courtiers”), and his mobile, foxlike ears strained at the faint noises.

In general, i avoid putting parentheses anywhere near a novel. The rationale is that parentheses are perhaps best used in non-fiction or straight communication, to convey additional information as an interruption or interjection to the current sentence or paragraph or thought. In a novel, however, the format feels intrusive to me, as if the narrator is tapping my shoulder to hand me a note. Details really read better to me if they are simply noted in the rhythm of description or dialogue.

Now, on the surface, i can't imagine why anyone needs to know about oil lamps versus torches. However, there's fertile ground here; maybe oil lamps could factor in as a prop (some scene with improvised Molotov cocktail bombs made from the lamps?) and so i could keep them for that reason. Or, they might reflect on the character 'Churnazh' in some way later, so i could keep them for that reason. Either way, i would make sure there IS a reason, otherwise the window dressing is meaningless.

Moving along: As far as "mobile, foxlike ears"... i feel as if i've been thrown a curveball. Remember, the first sentences didn't set up what a 'Bazhell Bahnakson' looks like; all we got was a shape in a dark corridor. So the appearance of fox ears makes me suddenly back up; is the character a six foot tall fox? Is the character a fox head on a human body? Is the author just drawing a metaphor that shouldn't be taken literally?

Curveball=bad, for me. So i would have straighted that out at the exact same time i described his dark shape.


Then they flattened in recognition, and he cursed. Such sounds were none of his business, he told himself, and keeping clear of trouble was. Besides, they were far from the first screams he’d heard in Navahk . . . and there’d been nothing a prince of rival Hurgrum could do about the others, either.

Adequate, but i would rewrite it.

* * *

He shouldn’t have taken the shortcut.

The sounds drifting from further down the darkened cross corridor were the tipoff to Bahzell Bahnakson, causing his mobile, foxlike ears to strain at the faint noises. The trip through these back corridors--used mainly by the palace's servants and numerous slaves--had been risky in the first place, yet utterly necessary for a well-known person like himself to visit Brandark without the Guard's knowledge. But now, the sounds reminded him that he had only increased the risk by taking a shortcut, even despite the trouble saved by avoiding the old keep's more treacherous passages.

Shortly, his cautious steps led to a dim hall, its stale air bearing the stink of a few weak torches. The lack of light made him smirk for a moment, he knew the brighter but more expensive oil lamps were always saved for Churnazh and his “courtiers”. Then his ears interrupted, flattening in recognition of what the background noises actually represented; he cursed, as such sounds were none of his business. Keeping clear of trouble was the focus here. Besides, they were far from the first screams he’d heard since entering the province of Navahk... and there was nothing that just one skulking prince of Hurgrum could have done about the others, either.

[detante]

i'm starting to think we're speaking at cross-purposes. My comment doesn't reallly address grammar or style of narration, since i would actually agree with you that the first-person narrator's "inner voice" would determine those things.

Then I am confused by your "cross my I's and dot my T's" comment. But as you seem to agree with me after all, it is not important.

And of course everything i've said is based only on the first pages. If later on the novel throws me my details, i suppose i could let the author off the hook.

This is a prime example of why you should never ask someone to critique your work a chapter (or in this case a page) at a time. The feedback will often reflect the reader's disappointed that their curiosity has not been satisfied.

I humbly submit that what you see as plot holes could in fact be intended to arose the reader's curiosity. "How did the bum get that far into the building? And with a gun, no less! I guess I'll have to turn the page to find out."

If you had the book in hand, would you turn the page to find out?

[Kate Nepveu]

This reader's impressions:

Other-world fantasy, with different humanoid races. Political manuverings. A lot of names and backstory to take in. It feels forced, getting all that backstory in the first two pages as our POV character stops and listens to screams.

Taking it piece by piece:

He shouldn’t have taken the shortcut.
Punchy, okay. Something bad is about to happen.
Bahzell Bahnakson realized that the instant he heard the sounds drifting down the inky-dark cross corridor.
Name sounds either foreign or made-up. Third-person retrospective.
He’d had to keep to the back ways used only by the palace servants—and far more numerous slaves—if he wanted to visit Brandark without the Guard’s knowledge, for he was too visible to come and go openly without being seen. But he shouldn’t have risked the shortcut just to avoid the more treacherous passages of the old keep.
Palace, so either a historical or a fantasy. The palace is run by the Bad Guys. It may also be dangerous in its own right--physically treacherous, as in decaying or trapped?
He stood in an ill-lit hall heavy with the stink of its sparse torches (the expensive oil lamps were saved for Churnazh and his “courtiers”),
Tech level is medieval-oid. Churnazh is the owner? Definitely a Bad Guy (only Bad Guys get 'courtiers' in scare quotes). Filtered third, not camera third.
and his mobile, foxlike ears strained at the faint noises. Then they flattened in recognition,
Ah, fantasy, then, because here we have a non-human.
and he cursed. Such sounds were none of his business, he told himself, and keeping clear of trouble was. Besides, they were far from the first screams he’d heard in Navahk . . .
Yup, they're really the Bad Guys. Really. Bad.
and there’d been nothing a prince of rival Hurgrum could do about the others, either.
Okay, Navahk is the place we are. Our POV character is a Prince from a different land, who is not in a good position here. (We're getting a lot of harsh consonant names, which remind me vaguely of Eastern Europe. I'm rotten at names, though, so will just tuck this away for future resonances.)
He squeezed his dagger hilt,
Further confirmation of tech level. Our guy goes about armed, even though he feels impotent.
and his jaw clenched with the anger he dared not show his “hosts.”
More impotence.
Bahzell had never considered himself squeamish, even for a hradani,
Presumably "hradani" is his race. Bad Guys are of a different race?
but that was before his father sent him here as an envoy. As a hostage, really, Bahzell admitted grimly.
Look, exposition coming up:
Prince Bahnak’s army had crushed Navahk and its allies, yet Hurgrum was only a single city-state. She lacked the manpower to occupy her enemies’ territories, though many a hradani chieftain would have let his own realm go to ruin by trying to add the others to it.
There it is! I guess Prince Bahnak is our guy's father; I had a hard time with that at first, because it was separated from the mention of his father by a sentence. And our guy's dad is smart and wise and stuff. They're Good Guys.
But Bahnak was no ordinary chieftain.
Yup, Good Guys.
He knew there could be no lasting peace while Churnazh lived, yet he was wise enough to know what would happen if he dispersed his strength in piecemeal garrisons, each too weak to stand alone.
Yup, Good Guys. And Churnazh, yup, Bad guy.
He could defeat Navahk and its allies in battle; to conquer them he needed time to bind the allies his present victories had attracted to him, and he’d bought that time by tying Churnazh and his cronies up in a tangle of treaty promises, mutual defense clauses, and contingencies a Purple Lord would have been hard put to unra-vel.
Long sentence. Purple Lord must be some kind of lawyer or priest equivalent. So, the Good Guys are good at political/diplomatic manuverings as well as battle. Things are at a precarious peace, to be war again as soon as the Good Guys can manage it.
Half a dozen mutually suspicious hradani warlords found the task all but impossible,
Apparently Bad Guys are of the same race? Treaties were to bind Churnazh and cronies, hradani warlords couldn't unravel, Churnazh and cronies must = hrandani warlords.
and to make certain they kept trying rather than resorting to more direct (and traditional) means of resolution, Bahnak had insisted on an exchange of hostages. It was simply Bahzell’s ill fortune that Navahk, as the most powerful of Hurgrum’s opponents, was entitled to a hostage from Hurgrum’s royal family.
And we're back to our POV character and his hostage status.
Bahzell understood, but he wished, just this once, that he could have avoided the consequences of being Bahnak’s son.
Ah, it's hard to be a royal son, innit?
Bad enough that he was a Horse Stealer, towering head and shoulders above the tallest of the Bloody Sword tribes and instantly identifiable as an outsider.
On first read, my eyes started glazing over about here from the excessive infodumping. I'm not going to bother going through the rest, except to note that everyone apparently is subject to the Rage which makes them like beserkers.

Oh, and at the end, something bad still hasn't happened to our guy.

[Crusader]

@detante
Then I am confused by your "cross my I's and dot my T's" comment.

Oops. Now i understand. Perhaps if i'd said, "checked every nook and cranny for mistakes"? 'Cos that's what i meant. Sorry for the confusion.


This is a prime example of why you should never ask someone to critique your work a chapter (or in this case a page) at a time. The feedback will often reflect the reader's disappointed that their curiosity has not been satisfied.

i agree, provisionally... if the author is steadily generating pages and the reader isn't impatient, then i can't see why it wouldn't work. Otherwise, yes, i agree... this method of examining openings to a novel does potentially raise questions about plot elements or timing that just weren't meant to be answered in the first pages.


I humbly submit that what you see as plot holes could in fact be intended to arose the reader's curiosity. "How did the bum get that far into the building? And with a gun, no less! I guess I'll have to turn the page to find out."

Very reasonable idea, in general. i suppose my argument here is that in the specific context of analyzing the first two pages, the attempt just did not work for me; the hook feels like an error, for very specific reasons that i've droned about already.


If you had the book in hand, would you turn the page to find out?

Certainly. But the problem is that my mood has shifted from "neat story, i want to see where it leads" to "i'm fact-checking this bozo to see if he's pulling a fast one."

[detante]

If you had the book in hand, would you turn the page to find out?

Certainly. But the problem is that my mood has shifted from "neat story, i want to see where it leads" to "i'm fact-checking this bozo to see if he's pulling a fast one."

LOL, point well taken.

[Crusader]

Other-world fantasy, with different humanoid races. Political manuverings. A lot of names and backstory to take in. It feels forced, getting all that backstory in the first two pages as our POV character stops and listens to screams.

Sounds spot-on, to me. i concur that it feels.. unrealistic, to have a character think that much about "plot points" in general. Nevermind that we've already been told about the supposedly high risk of the current journey. i mean, just how long could the poor devil stand there, if he's really concerned with being seen?

And, i sense the work is unpublished. If so, and if the author is reading our comments, i hope any resultant sting isn't too painful. =(

[detante]

I must confess that I omitted a short prologue because I know most people do not read them. This is how the manuscript begins:

hradani (hrä-dä-ne) n. (1) One of the original Five Races of Man, noted for foxlike ears, great stature and physical strength, and violence of temperament. (2) A barbarian or berserker. (3) Scum, brigand. adj. (1) Of or pertaining to the hradani race. (2) Dangerous, bloodthirsty or cruel. (3) Treacherous, not to be trusted. (4) Incapable of civilized conduct. [Old Kontovaran: from hra, calm + danahi, fox.]

Rage, the (rag) n. Hradani term for the uncontrollable berserk bloodlust afflicting their people. Held by some scholars to be the result of black sorcery dating from the Fall of Kontovar (q.v.).

Strictures of Ottovar (strik-cherz uv äh-to-vär) n. Ancient code of white wizardry enforced by Council of Ottovar in pre-Fall Kontovar. The Strictures are said to have prohibited blood magic or the use of sorcery against non-wizards, and violation of its provisions was a capital offense. It is said that the wild wizard (q.v.) Wencit of Rum, last Lord of the Council of Ottovar prior to the Fall, still lives and attempts to enforce them with the aid of the Order of Semkirk.


—New Manhome Encyclopedic
Dictionary of Norfressan Languages,
Royal and Imperial Press:
King Kormak College, Manhome.

[Euan Harvey]

And, i sense the work is unpublished.
;)

Oath of Swords (http://www.baen.com/library/0671876422/0671876422.htm) -- actually not a bad book, but his HH books are far better.

Edited to add: IMHO, people's reactions to the opening just go to show the importance of considering a book as a whole, and not attempting to write in a genre you're unfamiliar with.

[maestrowork]

Okay, I'll put on my reader's hat and play:


He shouldn’t have taken the shortcut.

Good opening, setting up suspense: We know something bad is going to happen. Who is "he"? I guess we'll find out.


Bahzell Bahnakson realized that the instant he heard the sounds drifting down the inky-dark cross corridor.

Now we know who "he" is, but the name says he's foreign? It's not easy to pronounce the name so that takes me away from the story a bit. Also, I tend to hate alliterated names. We have some sort of setting, something probably gothic, medieval? We don't know what kind of sounds though... could be more specific here.


He’d had to keep to the back ways used only by the palace servants—and far more numerous slaves—if he wanted to visit Brandark without the Guard’s knowledge, for he was too visible to come and go openly without being seen.

We have more of the settings... it's definitely not modern. A bit of characterization -- he's a bit secretive. New question, who is Brandark?

But he shouldn’t have risked the shortcut just to avoid the more treacherous passages of the old keep.

Restate the mistake. But so far, we still don't know what is happening. We still don't know what sounds and why he feels it's a mistake.

He stood in an ill-lit hall heavy with the stink of its sparse torches (the expensive oil lamps were saved for Churnazh and his “courtiers”), and his mobile, foxlike ears strained at the faint noises.

We have a better sense of the place -- dark corridors with torches -- although the parenthesized info is distracting and sounds like info dump. I don't even know who these people are, let alone care about who Churnazh and his courtiers are... Okay, now we know "he" is not human.


Then they flattened in recognition, and he cursed.

Not sure what "they" is... have to read it again to realize it's the flames.

Such sounds were none of his business, he told himself, and keeping clear of trouble was.

Again, I have no idea what sounds they are. It's getting a little annoying. More characterization: He's curious, but he knows he shouldn't be. But he's drawn to it...


Besides, they were far from the first screams he’d heard in Navahk . . . and there’d been nothing a prince of rival Hurgrum could do about the others, either.

I'm a lost with this sentence. What prince of rival Hurgrum? What others? He's been to Navahk and heard some bad things, screams, etc. Is he the prince of Hurgrum? Whose rival? Who's POV is this?


He squeezed his dagger hilt, and his jaw clenched with the anger he dared not show his “hosts.”

What anger? Why is he angry now? I don't know anything about anger until now. And his hosts? Are they the Brandarks? Why is he here?

Bahzell had never considered himself squeamish, even for a hradani, but that was before his father sent him here as an envoy.

Ok, so we get a little more background here.


As a hostage, really, Bahzell admitted grimly.
So he's here against his will, perhaps?


Prince Bahnak’s army had crushed Navahk and its allies, yet Hurgrum was only a single city-state. She lacked the manpower to occupy her enemies’ territories, though many a hradani chieftain would have let his own realm go to ruin by trying to add the others to it.

Backstory. I find it awkward to sink into backstory at this point. Takes me right out of the moment. I want to know what is going on, and not having a history lesson about some alien politics...


But Bahnak was no ordinary chieftain. He knew there could be no lasting peace while Churnazh lived, yet he was wise enough to know what would happen if he dispersed his strength in piecemeal garrisons, each too weak to stand alone.

Suddenly we're switched to Bahnak. We were with Bahzell before. Also, all these "B" names are confusing as hell at this point. Bahzell, Bahnak, Branark... what? More back story. Yawn.... and who is Churnazh again?


He could defeat Navahk and its allies in battle; to conquer them he needed time to bind the allies his present victories had attracted to him, and he’d bought that time by tying Churnazh and his cronies up in a tangle of treaty promises, mutual defense clauses, and contingencies a Purple Lord would have been hard put to unra-vel. Half a dozen mutually suspicious hradani warlords found the task all but impossible, and to make certain they kept trying rather than resorting to more direct (and traditional) means of resolution, Bahnak had insisted on an exchange of hostages. It was simply Bahzell’s ill fortune that Navahk, as the most powerful of Hurgrum’s opponents, was entitled to a hostage from Hurgrum’s royal family.

To be honest, I find the whole paragraph boring, info dumping. It gives me information why Bahzell is here and his relations to Hurgrum. The whole thing is so long... all I need to know, really, is that Bahzell's is a Hurgrum royal and he's now a hostage. We got to know about who Churnazh is.



Bahzell understood, but he wished, just this once, that he could have avoided the consequences of being Bahnak’s son.

Ugh. Now we know he's Bahnak's son. Why not eariler? Why keep it from me. It's not suspense. It's just coy and annoying at this point.


Bad enough that he was a Horse Stealer, towering head and shoulders above the tallest of the Bloody Sword tribes and instantly identifiable as an outsider.

More descriptions. But no characterization: we still don't know much about "Bahzell the person."



Worse that Hurgrum’s crushing victories had humiliated Navahk, which made him an instantly hated outsider. Yet both of those things were only to be expected, and Bahzell could have lived with them, if only Navahk weren’t ruled by Prince Churnazh, who not only hated Prince Bahnak (and his son), but despised them as degenerate, over-civilized weaklings, as well. His cronies and hangers-on aped their prince’s attitude and, predictably, each vied with the other to prove his contempt was deeper than any of his fellows’.

More info dumping. And honestly, at this point, I'm completely out of the moment. Where was he again? Whose point of view is this? It seems like we're further and further away from Bahzell's POV...



So far, Bahzell’s hostage status had kept daggers out of his back and his own sword sheathed, but no hradani was truly suited to the role of diplomat, and Bahzell had come to suspect he was even less suited than most.

So is he a hostage or a diplomat? I'm not sure. But it seems like he's safe so far, and he has use of weapons... so he's not really a prisoner.


It might have been different somewhere else, but holding himself in check when Bloody Swords tossed out insults that would have cost a fellow Horse Stealer blood had worn his temper thin.

More stuff.


He wondered, sometimes, if Churnazh secretly wanted him to lose control, wanted to drive Bahzell into succumbing to the Rage in order to free himself from the humiliating treaties?

What is the Rage? The order of "He" and "Bahzell" in the same sentence confuses me, as if "he" is a separate person than "Bahzell" and prompts me to ask: who is speaking here?


Or was it possible Churnazh truly believed his sneer that the Rage had gone out of Hurgrum, leaving her warriors gutless as water?

Is "gutless" figurative or literal? So far, I'm trying to wrap my head around all the politics of alien races I don't know about, or rather, not really care at this point. There is nothing, at this point, for me to care about any of these.


It was hard to be sure of anything where the Navahkan was concerned, but two things were certain as death. He hated and despised Prince Bahnak, and his contempt for the changes Bahnak had wrought in Hurgrum was boundless.

More exposition. At least we know (being told, however) that Bahzell despises his father. But boy, I feel like I've just been spoon fed decades of history and politics in two pages...


At the point, I'm not sure if I want to go on reading. Something bad "promised" at the begining still hasn't happened. I think it's the time I put down the book and do something else.

[detante]

Oath of Swords

Euan is, of course, correct.
The Baen free library (http://www.baen.com/library/) is such a wonderful resource.

[Irysangel]

Ugh. I would have tossed the book immediately after reading all the place and character names.

Blech.

[reph]

Then they flattened in recognition, and he cursed.

Not sure what "they" is... have to read it again to realize it's the flames.


I thought it was the ears. Plausibility check: I don't know about foxes' ears, but cats' ears don't flatten when alertness diminishes; they relax. Flattened ears on a cat mean enjoyment or readiness to fight.

This thing is published?

[Crusader]

That was a published work? [jaw drop] It read like a fan fiction.

Edit: Ah, my thunder was stolen. [shakes a fist at reph] But really, there's hardly any other way to react.

[sc211]

At Amazon it's got 4.5 stars, from 24 reviewers.

www.amazon.com/exec/obido...ce&s=books (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671876422/qid=1103767736/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-3907060-1072706?v=glance&s=books)

[Crusader]

i would like to see what critiques come of this 'first page'. Should be interesting; is it a page-turner? Is it well-crafted? (All text, phrasing, and punctuation are verbatim.)

* * *

I had always been fascinated by the big house of Framling. Perhaps it had begun when I was two years old and Fabian Framling had kidnapped me and kept me there for two weeks. It was a house full of shadows and mystery, I discovered, when I went in search of the peacock-feather fan. In the long corridors, in the gallery, in the silent rooms, the past seemed to be leering at one from all corners, insidiously imposing itself on the present and almost--though never quite--obliterating it.

For as long as I could remember Lady Harriet Framling had reigned supreme over our village. Farm labourers standing respectfully at the side of the road while the carriage, emblazoned with the majestic Framling arms, drove past, touched their forelocks and the women bobbed their deferential curtsies. She was spoken of in hushed whispers as though those who mentioned her feared they might be taking her name in vain; in my youthful mind she ranked with the Queen and was second only to God. It was small wonder that when her son, Fabian, commanded me to be his slave, I--being only six years old at that time--made no protest. It seemed only natural that we humble folk should serve the Big House in any way that was demanded of us.

The Big House--known to the community as "The House" as though those dwellings which the rest of us occupied were something...

[maestrowork]

How about this one... this is a prologue, not a first chapter.


Sam and I are sitting on a mostly deserted beach on Lake Michigan a little north of the Drake Hotel in Chicago. The Drake is filled with treasured memories for both of us, and we had dinner at our favorite table there earlier. I need to be with Sam tonight, because it’s one year since, well, everything happened that shouldn’t have happened -- it’s one year since Danny died.

“This is the spot where I met Danny, Sam. In May, six years ago,” I say.

Sam is a good listener who holds eye contact beautifully and is almost always interested in what I have to say, even when I’m being a bore, like now. We’ve been best friends since I was two, maybe even before that. Just about everybody calls us “the cutest couple,” which is a little too saccharine for both of our tastes. But it happens to be true.

“Sam, it was freezing that night Danny and I met, and I had a terrible cold. To make it worse, I had been locked out of our apartment by my old boyfriend Chris, that awful beast.”

“That despicable brute, that creep,” Sam contributes. “I never liked Chris. Can you tell?”

“So this nice guy, Danny, comes jogging by and he asks if I’m all right. I’m coughing and crying and a total mess. And I say, ‘Do I look like I’m all right? Mind your own blacking business. You’re not going to pick me up, if that’s what you’re thinking. Scram!” I snorted a laugh Sam’s way.

“That’s where I got my nickname, ‘Scram.’ Anyway, Danny came back on the second half of his run. He said he could hear me coughing for two miles down the beach. He brought me coffee, Sam. He ran up the beach with a hot cup of coffee for a complete stranger.”

“Yes, but a beautiful stranger, you have to admit.”

I stopped talking, and Sam hugged me and said, “You’ve been through so much. It’s awful and it’s unfair. I wish I could wave a magic wand and make it all better for you.”

I pulled out a folded, wrinkled envelope from the picket of my jeans. “Danny left this for me. In Hawaii. One year ago today.”

“Go ahead, Jennifer. Let it out. I want to hear everything tonight.”

I opened the letter and began to read. I was already starting to choke up.

Dear, wonderful, gorgeous Jennifer…

You’re the writer, not me, but I had to try to put down some of my feelings about your incredible news. I always thought that you couldn’t possibly make me any happier, but I was wrong.

Jen, I’m flying so high right now I can’t believe what I’m feeling. I am, without a doubt, the luckiest man in the world. I married the best woman, and now I’m going to have the best baby with her. How could I not be a pretty good dad, with all that going for me? I will be. I promise.

I love you even more today than I did yesterday, and you wouldn’t believe how much I loved you yesterday.

I love you, and our little “peanut.”…

Danny.

Tears started to roll down my cheeks. “I’m such a big baby,” I said. “I’m pathetic.”

“No, you’re one of the strongest women I know. You’ve lost so much, and you’re still fighting.”

“Yeah, but I’m losing the battle. I’m losing. I’m losing real bad, Sam.”

Then Sam pulled me close and hugged me, and for the moment at least, it was all better -- just like always.



(Yes, you noticed the tense change, too? They're not typos. They're in the actual texts)

[maestrowork]

I had always been fascinated by the big house of Framling.

the Framling house must play a big part in the story. Ok, I'm all ears...


Perhaps it had begun when I was two years old and Fabian Framling had kidnapped me and kept me there for two weeks.

Not bad. Now you've got me asking questions: Who are the Framlings? Who is Fabian? And why did he kidnap the narrator? What happened next? (but the "Peter Parker" names again? What's with that?)


It was a house full of shadows and mystery, I discovered, when I went in search of the peacock-feather fan.

Fair enough. But why is he/she looking for the fan? And what is mysterious about the house?

In the long corridors, in the gallery, in the silent rooms, the past seemed to be leering at one from all corners, insidiously imposing itself on the present and almost--though never quite--obliterating it.

It's okay so far, still a little too telling. But at least I'm getting some imagery of what the house might look like. How old is the narrator? Is the narrator a man, woman, a child? I'm getting a little impatient here...

For as long as I could remember Lady Harriet Framling had reigned supreme over our village.

OK, now we have some info about the Framlings... apparently the story happens in some village.

Farm labourers standing respectfully at the side of the road while the carriage, emblazoned with the majestic Framling arms, drove past, touched their forelocks and the women bobbed their deferential curtsies.

Now this is nice and vivid. I immediately get the apparent time period and setting. It's probably a historical fiction.


She was spoken of in hushed whispers as though those who mentioned her feared they might be taking her name in vain; in my youthful mind she ranked with the Queen and was second only to God.

Queen. So this may be somewhere in England or some magical kingdom... don't know yet. Characterization of Lady Framling through the people.


It was small wonder that when her son, Fabian, commanded me to be his slave, I--being only six years old at that time--made no protest.

OK, now we know something about the "kidnapping" and the age of the narrator. I'd like to know it earlier though... I still don't know if the narrator is a he or a she... Also, when did the kidnapping occur? Meaning, is the narrator an adult now, or still a child?


It seemed only natural that we humble folk should serve the Big House in any way that was demanded of us.

Characterization of the narrator and the period, etc. Nicely done. So much is said in a simple sentence.


The Big House--known to the community as "The House" as though those dwellings which the rest of us occupied were something...

Unfinished sentence...

So far so good. I'm interesting in learning more about "The House." At the same time, I feel like I'm reading a set up -- an opening shot of a movie. There's nothing compelling yet to stop me from putting the book down. There are some good questions I'd like to find out: who is the narrator, who the Framlings are, and what is the Big House. Most importantly, what the story is about.... I have the foggiest idea right now.

Is it a page-turner for me? Marginally. Is it awkful? No, and the writing is decent. Will I read it? Probably, but maybe not tonight.

[Crusader]

@maestrowork:

i want to comment on your critique, but i swear the drollery of your thoughts keeps seizing up my brain cells with amusement ("... but the 'Peter Parker' names again? What's with that?")

i can say this much: you are far, far, far more charitable to the piece than i would be.

And as far as the item you posted... [makes a face] One comment you said, summarizes my sentiments: "Is the narrator a man, woman, a child? I'm getting a little impatient here..." The bloody thing has no main character description whatsoever, or even any gender pronouns at all, for that matter. i couldn't tell that the narrator was a woman 'till halfway down... that kind of mistake is annoying enough to discourage critique altogether.

[maestrowork]

How important is revealing the gender of a 1st person narrator? I think it's pretty important.

I remember reading someone's WIP in a writing class... now, this person could write -- marvelous writer with nice prose, pacing and details. But the darn thing was written in 1st person without telling us the narrator's name or gender. It read like a man's POV, especially the comments on lustful thoughts about the beautiful flight attendant, etc. It was only at the end of the chapter that it was revealed the narrator was a woman (an FBI agent at that) -- thus a lesbian. It's a "trick" that actually angered a lot of people in the class.

For example, in Grisham's example (The Street Lawyer), we don't know if the narrator is a man or a woman. We can only assume that it's "he" and perhaps a lawyer, but we have no good way of telling. We only get the feeling that he's a "man" because of his reaction to the street bum, speech pattern, etc. but first impression could be wrong. It would be jarring if we find out later that the narrator is actually a woman.

Instead of saying "the receptionist greeted me..." it might be a better thing to say "'Good morning, Mr. Smith," the receptionist said..." Now I know the narrator is a man.

How many people are bothered by that? Or is it important to the story?

[novelator]

You know, I'm bound to anger someone here and that is not my intent, but the last two or three pages of discussion are an example of precisely why I don't believe in writers groups or mass critiques, but rather one or two good writing buddies who know my voice and will help with the typos, perhaps aid in the development of the piece to a point, after which I farm the book out to a slew of beta-readers who are not writers to read from beginning to end and give me their honest impressions.

All the suggestions, and most were very good, prove only that we are all individual writers with an independent approach to our work. There are innumerable ways to word sentences and paragraphs, beginnings and endings, and tell our stories, no one way right or wrong, just different. I found Grisham's opening described more about the main character by inference than the homeless man, and yes, I did want to turn the page to find out what happened. Some of you felt qualified to pick it apart, but the question that really prompted me to think was what if Grisham had posted the work here, or anywhere for that matter. Would it be the same? If he had implemented a fraction of what was suggested--hardly.

Advice is all well and good, but I've said it before and I'll say it again--there comes a time in every true author's path where they must float their own boat, right or wrong, good or bad.

Someone else mentioned we should keep our advice consistent, but I venture to say that especially with writing, consistency, or doing what everyone else is doing because it meets with the approval of the pack, leads to homogenization. Not to say there aren't certain details that any writer would be a fool to overlook, such as formatting, adherence to publisher's guidelines, and the like. My point here is that we should be consistent mainly in encouraging each other to pursue our individuality, that our unique voice and approach to story-telling is what will make or break us as writers.

At one time I considered posting a scene at AW, just to see what would happen, until I realized I already knew--as with any work posted anywhere subject to writers' opinions, there will be kudos and disagreement, suggestions here, must do's there, the cans and the can'ts, and only because we are all different. I, for one, think we should celebrate our differences, and encourage one another best we can. I'm not against offering help or suggestions when asked, but I think the need for validation by others is a phase we all go through in pursuit of our writing goals. If you, the author, are not your own best advocate, your number one fan, if you don't validate yourself, all the suggestions by others won't do you any good.

If I've offended anyone, I humbly apologize. This is only my opinion. YMMV

Mari

[maestrowork]

Critiques are basically opinions. They maybe based on experience, knowledge, and understanding, but they're opinions nonetheless.

I think it's a good thing for a writer to get opinions for his work from different sources, either from a writer's or a reader's point of view. But it's true that people are different from one another, and writers write in different ways. We should become comfortable in our own skills and voices and styles that we could pick out the gems from the coal. But for a new writer, it might not be an easy thing to do.

That's why when I critique or offer editing advice, I always keep the author's style in mind.

There is wisdom in certain things, and Uncle Jim's thread has illustrated many of these things -- clarity of plot, character development, vivid details (show, not tell), natural dialogue, strong beginning, etc. -- that are universal and true, no matter what our individual styles are. Sometimes a reader can tell you something is wrong, but he/she can't really tell you exactly what. It's when a fellow writer might be able to help us pinpoint the problem, be it stilted dialogue, implausible plot points, or flat characterization.

[pianoman5]

I can see where you're coming from, Mari - picking apart someone else's work may appear to be destructive, but in this forum I for one am convinced that it is useful. Perhaps not so much for those who are already confident in their craft and know exactly how to be their own worst critics and fix things accordingly, but certainly for those of us who need to develop their skill in analysing what they've written with a view to improving it.

If it's done in the spirit of carping criticism then it can be disappointingly mealy-mouthed, but that's rarely the case here.

I can't find the exact quote from a well-known author, but it goes something along the lines of:

"There is no force in nature equal to the urge of a writer equipped with a blue pencil to change someone else's work.''

I suspect few of us are not tempted occasionally.

Deconstructing an already published work may seem like an exercise in futility, but I'm sure there's some good in it if it makes each of us us think just a little bit harder before we commit a sentence to paper.

[Euan Harvey]

This thing is published? <!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>That was a published work? [jaw drop] It <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->
It's one of the author's earlier books. The sequel is much better, and his Honor Harrington books are great -- and extremely successful.

Oath of Swords gets much better after the first couple of chapters, so good, in fact, that an editor paid good money for it. And that's why books need to be considered as wholes, and not as agglomerations

[Crusader]

[thinking too hard]

It would be nice if i could simply say "i agree with all sides of the fence" and leave it at that. But that isn't very helpful... so let's see.

novelator said:
All the suggestions, and most were very good, prove only that we are all individual writers with an independent approach to our work. There are innumerable ways to word sentences and paragraphs, beginnings and endings, and tell our stories, no one way right or wrong, just different.

Well, yes. But, no.

i might compare it to the example someone mentioned of house-building. There's a certain base standard that houses are designed to meet--four walls, a roof, and a door. Then a notch above that--water, sewer, wiring. Then a notch above that--air conditioning (heating and cooling), appliances.

In that light, no matter how unique the end result may be, the actual product is built up to meet certain standards along a range of progression from start to finish. Miss or mangle a stage--"Doors are optional, aren't they?"--and you have something that will strike a discerning mind as incomplete.

So while i definitely agree that there are a myriad of ways to do anything, including novel-writing, there are actually a finite number of ways to put together something that will appeal to the standards of a majority of knowledgeable readers as "well constructed".

(Which is itself a standard, obviously, and begs the question: to whom are we writing? But i digress...)

Another analogy: English speakers across the world communicate by adhering broadly to a common standard of the language. Then splinter off into cultural and geographic groups, and you see uniqueness has molded the language with slang, new words, new noun-verb agreements, and so on. Yet, the main standard, English, doesn't go anywhere; it's still the bedrock, allowing disparately unique English speakers to still get a message across to each other.

So, the concept here is likewise akin to a subtle struggle between conforming just enough to guidelines so that we don't build something halfway daft, yet breaking conformity just enough to make the work in our own voice.

And then... it all skews depending on the "whom" we're addressing. If writing a children's book, i'm going to use a different standard for building it than i would with an adult techno-thriller. If building a house for a party-animal, the layout will be different than for an octogenerian convalescent. And a speech from a Jamaican to Jamaicans uses a different form of English than an Australian wuld use to Australians.

i guess the point is just that there are standards. Underneath all the differences and uniqueness, there are still standards of writing, building, and language, keeping everything close enough so that a majority can participate.

Therefore, one quick way to find out what standards are in the reader's mind, is to let a few readers tell you. Then you can decide for yourself how to mold your vision, how to conform just enough while breaking away just enough at the same time. Think of it as "knowing your audience", if that's more palatable.

[still thinking] So, the wise author would be able to know when suggested changes amount to nothing ("i want you to build your house without any carpeting") versus when they are meaningful ("Um, you sort of forgot to add bathrooms, man.") To know genuine improvement ("When you write your speech to the Jamaican Cultural Society, be sure to mention X Y and Z") versus just a difference of opinion ("I say potatoe, you say potato, but i'm right!")

[/ramble off]

[maestrowork]

I'm going to go ahead and dissect this work:



Sam and I are sitting on a mostly deserted beach on Lake Michigan a little north of the Drake Hotel in Chicago.

Opening line. We're introduced to someone named Sam and the narrator. They're having a vacation/get-away. Not sure what time it is, but since it's a deserted beach, it may be chilly out there?

The Drake is filled with treasured memories for both of us, and we had dinner at our favorite table there earlier.

Sam and the narrator has a history, and maybe a romantic one.

I need to be with Sam tonight, because it’s one year since, well, everything happened that shouldn’t have happened -- it’s one year since Danny died.

Okay, here's a twist. Just as we thought Sam might be a lover, there's a mention of Danny, who died a year ago. Who is Danny? Is he a child? Or an ex-lover? Brother? It wouldn't be a parent, since the narrator would be saying "my father."

“This is the spot where I met Danny, Sam. In May, six years ago,” I say.

OK, now we're getting some history. But the dialogue feels somewhat stilted and info dumping. I can only assume, at this point, the narrator is a woman. However, it could be a gay story.

Sam is a good listener who holds eye contact beautifully and is almost always interested in what I have to say, even when I’m being a bore, like now.

Characterization of narrator: self-deprecating -- "I'm being a bore."

We’ve been best friends since I was two, maybe even before that. Just about everybody calls us “the cutest couple,” which is a little too saccharine for both of our tastes. But it happens to be true.

OK, perhaps Sam is a long-time best friend. Or maybe more. We still don't know because the "cutest couple" remark is vague. Also, I have a feeling the narrator is female, since no one is going to call two boys "the cutest couple." Still, it's starting to get a bit annoying not knowing the narrator's name or gender.


“Sam, it was freezing that night Danny and I met, and I had a terrible cold. To make it worse, I had been locked out of our apartment by my old boyfriend Chris, that awful beast.”

Some history revealed. However, the dialogue sounds very stilted and info dumping. I wonder, if Sam has been her best friend for so long, wouldn't he already know it all? Why would she say something like "my old boyfriend Chris"? Certainly Sam would know who Chris is.


“That despicable brute, that creep,” Sam contributes. “I never liked Chris. Can you tell?”

Ah, so Sam does know Chris. That makes the previous line even worse. At least we get to know the narrator has had a bad relationship. Some characterization: Sam seems protective. But as a best friend, wouldn't Sam have already told the narrator what a creep Chris was? Why would he asks him/her "Can you tell?"


“So this nice guy, Danny, comes jogging by and he asks if I’m all right. I’m coughing and crying and a total mess. And I say, ‘Do I look like I’m all right? Mind your own blanking business. You’re not going to pick me up, if that’s what you’re thinking. Scram!” I snorted a laugh Sam’s way.

She seems awfully rude and judgemental. If I were crying and someone asked me if I were okay, I wouldn't think I'd be so rude. Again, this feels stilted and cliche to me. But it characterizes the narrator as being disturbed (then) and reflective (now): "So this nice guy..." Also, she avoids talking about Chris again with Sam.


“That’s where I got my nickname, ‘Scram.’ Anyway, Danny came back on the second half of his run. He said he could hear me coughing for two miles down the beach. He brought me coffee, Sam. He ran up the beach with a hot cup of coffee for a complete stranger.”

While it's still info dump here, I feel it could be that she's reminiscing. Certainly Sam must know her nickname is "Scran" and possibly the story behind it. Again, I'm basing this on the fact that Sam and the narrator have been friends forever...


“Yes, but a beautiful stranger, you have to admit.”

So... what is the relationship between Sam and the narrator? This feels either like a flirt or a confirmation. It depends on the relationship between them... still not sure.

I stopped talking, and Sam hugged me and said, “You’ve been through so much. It’s awful and it’s unfair. I wish I could wave a magic wand and make it all better for you.”

Ugh! A big BOO BOO. The verb tense suddenly changes here. It was told in present tense, and suddenly it's past tense. What? Anyway, again, the dialogue sounds so... cliche.

I pulled out a folded, wrinkled envelope from the pocket of my jeans. “Danny left this for me. In Hawaii. One year ago today.”

Ah, a letter. One year ago today -- that's when Danny died. So this is the meat... I'm sensing something sad and sweet...

“Go ahead, Jennifer. Let it out. I want to hear everything tonight.”

So the narrator is a woman, and her name is Jennifer. Finally! Sam sounds condescending here. I know he's trying to be supportive... anyway.


I opened the letter and began to read. I was already starting to choke up.

I think it's unnecessary sentiment here. We know it's going to be sad... no need to set us up...


Dear, wonderful, gorgeous Jennifer…

Sure...

You’re the writer, not me, but I had to try to put down some of my feelings about your incredible news. I always thought that you couldn’t possibly make me any happier, but I was wrong.

Why are protagonists some often writers? Anyway, okay, some questions: What incredible news? Ah, I'm sure it has to do with a child! On his death bed she told him she was having his child. Wanna bet?


Jen, I’m flying so high right now I can’t believe what I’m feeling. I am, without a doubt, the luckiest man in the world. I married the best woman, and now I’m going to have the best baby with her.

I knew it.

How could I not be a pretty good dad, with all that going for me? I will be. I promise.

Okay, this is supposed to hit you with sadness. The guy just finds out he's going to be a dad, but he dies that day. He seems like a great husband and would-be father. This is definitely a romance...

I love you even more today than I did yesterday, and you wouldn’t believe how much I loved you yesterday.

I love you, and our little “peanut.”…

Danny.


Yep, a romance with a tragic beginning...

Tears started to roll down my cheeks. “I’m such a big baby,” I said. “I’m pathetic.”

Characterization: she's neurotic! It's the one-year anniversary of her husband's death. Of course she should be crying. Why say things like that? What is going on with her? Especially in front of her best friend... also what happens to the baby?

“No, you’re one of the strongest women I know. You’ve lost so much, and you’re still fighting.”

I'm sensing something worse than just Danny's death....


“Yeah, but I’m losing the battle. I’m losing. I’m losing real bad, Sam.”

Ah! Losing the battle... it could be many things. She's dying... or her baby is dying... or she's losing her baby somehow.... suspense! We'll have to turn the page to find out.

Then Sam pulled me close and hugged me, and for the moment at least, it was all better -- just like always.

Still not sure what is between Sam and Jennifer. Can a man and a woman really can be friends for all their lives and not have any romantic tension between them. I can't feel any sexual or romantic tension between them at this point. Is Sam gay? But it seems like Jennifer always feel safe with Sam and he's the only person she wants to be with on this day...

OK, there's suspense: What happened? What about the baby? What battle she's losing? I guess if you're interested enough with these characters, you would want to turn the page and find out.

So far it feels a little sappy for me right off the bat. It probably would appeal to women who love a tragic romance. A man would probably stay away, go to the next aisle and grab a Michael Crichton book.

[detante]

We now have opening scenes from Victoria Holt and James Patterson that I suspect were posted so we could play Site link removed per request of other site's Webmaster. I feel a twinge of guilt since my post kicked off the festivities. I admit I knew openings are not Weber’s strong suit. In my defense, there are several reasons I chose Oath of Swords. First and foremost, I knew I could cut and paste from the Baen Library. (I'm lazy.) Also, I felt OoS was obscure enough that it would not be immediately recognized. Finally, I picked this one because it is one of his earlier works. It was published because the editor believed in the story, not because there were legions of Weber fans clamoring for anything with his name on the cover.

Jen

[maestrowork]

Nope, my intention is definitely not to play [Redacted--JDM]. Why would you think that?

I'm replying to Uncle Jim's question: What if we post something, either published or unpublished, and see if we could crit the same way without knowing who the author is?

There's no intentional slight aiming at Patterson or anyone. I wasn't going to name him (not everyone has read his book). I think people are missing the point here, so READILY try to guess/announce who the author is (the kid who always raises his hand and yells, "Pick me! Pick me! I know the answer"). The exercise here is not to "guess the author and work."

[detante]

Nope, my intention is definitely not to play [Redacted--JDM]. Why would you think that?

I do not want to put words in anyone’s mouth, but I detect a snarky undertone to comments such as

i would like to see what critiques come of this 'first page'. Should be interesting; is it a page-turner? Is it well-crafted? (All text, phrasing, and punctuation are verbatim.)

and

(Yes, you noticed the tense change, too? They're not typos. They're in the actual texts)

Both comments seem to pass judgment as they warn the reader that the poster knew the text they were posting was not up to par. Perhaps I am wrong. If so, I apologize.

Jen

[maestrowork]

The first comment wasn't mine.

As for the second. It's not snarky. I didn't pick out the piece because I could laugh at the tense change (which, by the way, is an oversight on both the author's and the editor's part -- that it would go to print as is). I didn't notice the tense change AFTER I typed it and posted it. But it is a glaring mistake that it should be noted. There's a lesson to be learned here: even seasoned authors and editors made mistakes.

I mean, back to the original hypothesis: if you didn't know it was Patterson's, if it were MY piece, what would you say about it? (BTW, I did post my own WIP on SYW for crit/ridicule, so I am not excused from this line-by-line analysis, good or bad).

I still think you're missing the point, thinking that we're here to "bash the author." I had, actually, no intention of naming the author at all or telling you if the work was published or not. The fact that you knew it was Patterson and you called it out didn't make it an "author bashing." We are here to learn about the process, and I still think Uncle Jim's line-by-line analysis is a great tool for both writers AND readers. I'm just trying to illustrate a point here.

As you can see, I pointed out both good and bad parts (and I'm judging it from a reader's prospective, not a writer's, for this exercise) and simply tried to present what works and what doesn't for ME.

That goes to prove my hypothesis: if it were an unknown, unpublished work, we are so quick to say "it's crap, and here's what's wrong with it." But if it's a published work by a known author, suddenly someone is going to come out and say, "You're author bashing."

[Crusader]

@detante:

Oath of Swords struck me as unpublished fan fiction, and i was very surprised to find out otherwise, so it would be difficult to argue that i critiqued it for the sake of slamming a published author.

The piece maestrowork posted felt to me like a badly-written work... so bad that i couldn't bring myself to critique it because i couldn't find enough redeeming material thereof. So until you identified it as published, i had no idea, and hence i'm just as surprised as with the previous piece. Therefore, it's again a little hard to argue that my goal was mere spite towards a published author.

With regard to what i posted... i really wish the author hadn't been "outed" so soon, because so far only one person has offered a critique.

Now that the milk is spilt, however, i'll provide the context: Victoria Holt's The India Fan is a novel that has resided on my bookcase for more than ten years. i happened to glance at it the other day, and took it down to read for the first time in about ten years, recalling that while it was dreary dull to me in many places, certain elements were entertaining enough to make me read it way-back-when.

Unfortunately, i was absolutely shocked at how much the passage of time had further enfeebled the novel in my eyes. i couldn't bring myself to go further than four pages into it, the writing just seemed dreadful. It has been sitting on the desk untouched for days, and was thus right at hand when someone suggested "let's post pieces 'anonymously' and crit them".

So i typed out and posted the first page. And in reviewing the post, i felt it necessary to add a disclaimer that the wording and phrasing and such were verbatim--strictly so that if someone took any issue with comma placement or the like, they wouldn't think it was a typo or revision of mine.

Then, i stated quite clearly that i was curious to see what critiques would arise. Now obviously, as i find the work to be lacking, my opinion was set. But i refrained from saying so, since i didn't want to bias anyone's critique... and so i'm more than a little mystified at how you read a negative tone in my literal questions. Really, i wanted to know: IS the work a page-turner? IS it well-crafted? 'Cos, er, i thought that was the point of the exercise?

While we're on the subject, maestrowork's critique was very enlightening. He (i am guessing he's male?) pointed out things both positive and negative that i hadn't considered, while echoing things i had already seen. i still dislike the first four pages as much as ever, but i can see other angles on maybe why they were done the way they were done.

Overall, i feel i've profited from seeing what someone in a 'blind' test has to say about these pieces. It verifies to me the belief that good writing has nothing to do with the name on the cover or the publishing imprint on the spine, and everything to do with whether the bloody story is actually good in my eyes, or not. i therefore don't see where the accusation of "[Redacted-JDM]" applies...
... though i AM glad you posted that link. i loved the article and i find its principles to be very sound advice.

(By the way, how did you figure out my offering, anyway? Websearch? Good memory? Other?)

[James D Macdonald]

I've got a story in the upcoming anthology <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743498879/ref=nosim/madhousemanor" target="_new">Cosmic Tales: Adventures in Far Futures</a>.

Buy one. Better still, buy a dozen. They make excellent gifts.

[Gala]

Way to go, James!

Speaking of cosmic. A while back I mentioned I use the opening sentence of Grisham's book, which you so artfully dissected here on your thread, as an example of incorrect POV.

I was surprised to see the idea discussed at length. I've seen that before when I mention it live. Didn't expect that here.

Here's what I think of Grisham: I think he's cosmic. He's inspired, gifted, blessed, touched--whatever term suits one's fancy about such things. There's an ingredient, a cosmic blessing, some artists have that cannot be learned or imitated.

Good luck with your Cosmic story, James.

[Euan Harvey]

I agree with you about Grisham -- the first time I read 'the Firm' I ended up staying awake all night so I could finish the book and find out what happened. Another writer who has the same touch (IMHO) is Stephen King. You could dissect (and slam) individual bits pf prose, but when you're reading the book--damn!

[Sigh] I wish I could write that well. :(

[detante]

The first comment wasn't mine.

I never said it was. My post was not a personal attack on you. It was a statement on the general tone the thread had taken.

That goes to prove my hypothesis: if it were an unknown, unpublished work, we are so quick to say "it's crap, and here's what's wrong with it." But if it's a published work by a known author, suddenly someone is going to come out and say, "You're author bashing."

We cannot prove this since no one posted an unpublished work. Both you and Crusader left clues that you were posting published authors, whether you intended to or not.

My hypothesis is there are lots of wrong ways but no right way. Everything can be revised.

I appreciate the analysis you provided on all the posted works. You did point out the good along with the bad. I take you at your word that you were not being snarky. Clearly I am wrong and apologize, again, for misinterpreting your intentions.

[detante]

@Crusader

Once again, I apologize for misinterpreting your intentions.

I'm glad you enjoyed the link. There are dozens of entertaining and insightful articles on theSite link removed per request of other site's Webmaster site that can be applied to any form of storytelling.

I cheated and used a websearch to find the source of your post. I assumed that since the work was not your own chances were good it was a published work.

[maestrowork]

That's cool.

I think for the sake of this exercise, we should "forget" whether it's a published or unpublished work and truly just try to analyze it as I did earlier, on the merit of the piece itself, and not because of its published status or, worse, the author.

(However, I WAS astonished when I saw a published work by a famous author would contain such a BIG boo boo on the first few pages. I didn't start out to ridicule Patterson, but after I posted the excerpt, I did do a double take and said, "Wow? How could that be?")

Great authors can do wrong things. For example, some of Stephen King's books are drabs, and while The Firm was so good, Skipping Christmas was actually a bore to me. Sometimes, I do think famous authors get lazy. So I try to look at each work on its own merits, and not because so-and-so wrote it. It doesn't mean Grisham, for example, is a bad writer. He might not be the best stylist in the world, but boy can he tell a good story.

I think that's the point of this exercise, and I'm trying to do it. The next time we post some work, I don't want us to try to guess (or do a web search) who wrote what. That really beats the purpose of this experiment. Also, am I the only one participating?

;)

[detante]

How about this? No peeking and no websearching. And I promise to offer my own analysis, too. ;)

-----------------------

Preface

The Testimony of Alrak was reportedly written by the last known survivor of a Nesda, a small haven in the foothills of the Frenas Mountains. Nesda's wards were incomplete when the Vex hit. The abhorrent, Mujalabrin, easily slipped into the haven and ravaged its inhabitants.

Mujalabrin took a special interest in Nesda's only champion, Alrak the Bard. Alrak's talent was great, but his will was not. In a desperate attempt to save himself, Alrak offered to immortalize the abhorrent in epic versus. Amused by the idea, Mujalabrin agreed to keep the bard alive until he could write no more.

Scholars estimate it took Alrak 115 years to complete his 125,925 page Testimony. Alrak exhausted his limited supply of ink within the first year of composition. The vast majority of it seems to have been written in blood. After approximately 105 years, The Testimony of Alrak encompassed every scrap of paper in Nesda. Tests confirm that the last 8760 pages were crafted from exquisitely tanned and extravagantly trimmed skin.

The original copy of The Testimony of Alrak resides in a carefully warded vault in the Great Library of Kurth. Abhorrence lore experts have long clamored for access to the Testimony. While Master Tinus agrees that it could provide invaluable information, he refuses to release any portion of the original document. Instead, he has elected to have to have the original copy transcribed to warded vellum, infused with True Wood using ink infused with True Earth. No scribe has been allowed to work on more than 9 non-sequential pages. Despite these precautions, 68 of the 220 scribes working on the Testimony have since gone mad. While incidences of insanity are to be expected when working with abhorrence-related material, experts agree this is a higher percentage than usual.

Further transcriptions were halted after the scribe Paltis created duplicates of his work from memory, using ordinary ink and paper. Paltis made a small fortune when he sold his copies to an amateur collector. Shortly after his purchase, the collector murdered Paltis in the middle of the Bazaar. The collector was in berserk rage, screaming that Paltis was a liar and a thief. It took an arrow to the chest to stop the madman from killing innocent bystanders. A search of the collector's office uncovered 8 blank sheets of paper that radiating a lingering astral aura.

As of this writing, only 1800 of the 125,925 pages of The Testimony of Alrak have been reproduced. Master Tinus has made it clear that no further transcriptions will be created as long as he is in charge of the Library.


Chapter One

I have no fear of the underground. I spent my childhood under the mountains of Kurth. Usually I find comfort beneath the shelter of solid stone. But the halls of Kurth echo with vitality. There is a restless silence about this place. It is not the empty hush of a forgotten tomb. There is a palpable sense of malice lurking in this silence.

I was nine years of age when I first told my father of my wish to search for lost havens. In a futile attempt to dissuade me from that path, he reserved a three-page excerpt of the Testimony of Alrak for my edification. Given the documents reputation, he must have called in more than one favor to obtain it.

As chilling as Alrak's account is, it did not prepare me for my first contact with a living abhorrent. The estimation that this is a young abhorrent only deeps my self-deprecation. I can only assume that every member of the party is now marked.

While I cannot be certain that my own faculties have not been destroyed, it appears my husband's mind is now a devil's playground because of my audacity. I should have taken his council when he suggested we return to town. But my pride was not content to face the condescension of Councilman Stark with the paltry amount of information we had collected. Thanks to me, most party members are severely injured, many are trying to kill one another, and the some are missing. My hubris may well be the destruction of us all.

[Crusader]

Ok, i read the preface. Before i move on to the first chapter or whatnot, i want to record my reaction...

... i'm intensely amused by this, in a "laughing with you, not at you" sort of way. But since it isn't supposed to be amusing, i feel odd about it.

i guess it's just the way that the preface feels like it would be the crawl text and voiceover narration at the beginning of a barbarian movie. i can just hear James Earl Jones intoning, "The Testimony of Alrak was reportedly written by the last known survivor of a Nesda, a small haven in the foothills of the Frenas Mountains..."

But, aside from making me giggle every five seconds, it feels well written. i'm having intriguing mental images of the people and places described, even despite the bare infodumping taking place.

My earlier comments about "nice story, wonder where it goes next" versus "i wanna fact check this" are applying. It announces itself right off the bat as fantasy, and yet takes its own details seriously, so (despite my mirth) i'm able to suspend my disbelief. i'm intrigued, and i feel like the author has earned enough rope to hang themselves, at least.

It also has a fairly professional feel, nothing like the previous three samples. i'm not conscious yet of any glaring problems in what i've been told. i do question the point of having 220 scribes, when it would probably be easier to just let the experts directly read the darned thing... but the author mollifies me by saying that the scribes went bonkers, which allows me to conjecture that the keeper of the Testament would want to spare the experts from such a fate (experts don't come cheap, last i heard.)

And with that, i continue...

[Crusader]

Chapter One, here we go...

* * *

I have no fear of the underground. I spent my childhood under the mountains of Kurth. Usually I find comfort beneath the shelter of solid stone. But the halls of Kurth echo with vitality. There is a restless silence about this place. It is not the empty hush of a forgotten tomb. There is a palpable sense of malice lurking in this silence.

-The shift from third to first POV from preface to chapter one feels odd, almost jarring initially.
-The author's style is appealing to me, i like their wording and phrasing.
-The tone sounds like a diary entry. Perhaps this is why i don't personally write in first person or read many first person books; i find it somewhat difficult to transition directly into someone describing things that i am clueless about.
-The description is very very sparing. A lot of gaps to fill: mountains, halls, stone shelter. Just have vague images right now.


I was nine years of age when I first told my father of my wish to search for lost havens. In a futile attempt to dissuade me from that path, he reserved a three-page excerpt of the Testimony of Alrak for my edification. Given the documents reputation, he must have called in more than one favor to obtain it.

-Alarm bells: this document has the power to drive men mad, and the father gave a copy to a child? Eh? A charitable interpretion: this is a wonderchild, or else the documents don't universally have a potent effect. A wary interpretation: the author is trying a fast one.
-Was it an excerpt of the scribed copy, or literally a piece of the real thing? Probably the former, but i wonder.
-Father figure has social and political influence... bigtime.
-Child is an explorer. i like him or her already.
-Child is a bit rebelliious. i really like him or her more.
-Heh, "him or her" bothers me. i want to know that stuff right off the bat so i can hurry up and visualize my hero or heroine already. Like, when movies use voiceover narration, you can tell from the voice that it's a man or women, old or young, solemn or silly, etc.
-Lost havens... are we talking about a Nesda or Nesdas?


As chilling as Alrak's account is, it did not prepare me for my first contact with a living abhorrent. The estimation that this is a young abhorrent only deeps my self-deprecation. I can only assume that every member of the party is now marked.

-Tense weirdness. "As chilling as Alrak's account IS..." looks a tad off, since the prior paragraph was past tense.
-More tense weirdness: we've shifted from a rough present tense of someone rambling about their state of mind, to a past tense about their memories, to a very up-close and personal present tense: "The estimation that this is a young abhorrent only deeps my self-deprecation." Wha? Makes it sound like the abhorrent is a creature standing right in front of the narrator. It's a poor transition.
-Again, i'm feeling like this is a diary entry, and i don't know if it's working for me...


While I cannot be certain that my own faculties have not been destroyed, it appears my husband's mind is now a devil's playground because of my audacity. I should have taken his council when he suggested we return to town. But my pride was not content to face the condescension of Councilman Stark with the paltry amount of information we had collected. Thanks to me, most party members are severely injured, many are trying to kill one another, and the some are missing. My hubris may well be the destruction of us all.

-Whoa, zigzag. i was forming the impression that there was -going- to be an expedition to the "lost havens". Now i find out it already happened? i feel cheated.
-Tense weirdness again. We're back to a more detatched present tense. Ugh.
-So it's a woman. Likely not old, or young since she's an explorer. Maybe mid-twenties or thirties, possibly forties.
-Self-recrimination. Combined with the rebelliousness and curiosity i saw earlier, i'm liking this chick. Wonder if i can get her number... oops, married. [grumble]
-Willfully leading others into a hairy situation, based on pride? Refuses to compromise with her own husband? Meh. i dinna like this chick: i recall that we don't know why she was so drawn to go exploring in the first place, so i can't even cut her some slack for whatever her motivation was. (If it was a rescue mission/save the world thing, no problem. If she's just an obsessed lunatic, problem.)
-Information collection. Mention of authorities who might be displeased. So the expedition may have in part been a scientific endeavour with some kind of serious reward or outcome hanging on the results. Stakes were significant, then; this wasn't an afternoon hiking trip.
-Many party members trying to kill each other: is this an effect of that dratted Testament again? "i TOLD you not to read that!" [grin]

* * *

Okay, so i like it, though i've got serious questions that need to be answered pronto because the rope is starting to tighten on the author's neck. i confidently say that this submission is the first one that feels like published material to me; there are some minor oopsies ("versus" instead of "verses"? "deeps" instead of "deepens"? Strange tense tricks? A child read the Testament?) but it's working so far and looks good. i want more. =)

[postscript] Wow, i haven't rewritten anything. Definitely a good sign for the author, if i can review something without actively rearranging it halfway through...

[Crusader]

@detante:
Both you and Crusader left clues that you were posting published authors, whether you intended to or not.

Ehh. Since this is a writing board, i do hope you can understand the liberties i now take...

I interpret both you and Crusader to have left clues that you were posting published authors, whether you intended to or not.

Much more palatable, and i would concur with it readily, since i don't happen to agree that i left any clues at all, but i do agree that it could be interpreted that way and that you did intepret it that way.

In any case, thanks for the apologies; your willingness to do that up front, helped me to trust that you were speaking in good faith throughout.

Lastly, i'm surprised you found Victoria Holt's book so easily in a search--and disappointed that you went to do that before even trying to critique it. i feel cheated of seeing your perspective on the piece. =(

[detante]

Preface

I don’t like prefaces. Too often “preface” just a synonym for “info-dump”. But I’ll go with it.

The Testimony of Alrak was reportedly written by the last known survivor of a Nesda, a small haven in the foothills of the Frenas Mountains.

All the names have a foreign sound to them but I don’t recognize the location names. Probably a fictitious setting.

Nesda's wards were incomplete when the Vex hit.

Incomplete wards and vex are magical terms. This is probably a fantasy. Vex has a capital ‘v’. Must be something important.

The abhorrent, Mujalabrin, easily slipped into the haven and ravaged its inhabitants.

What the heck is an abhorrent and how does it ravage?

Mujalabrin took a special interest in Nesda's only champion, Alrak the Bard.

So the abhorrent is not a mindless beast.

Alrak's talent was great, but his will was not.

Sounds like trouble.

In a desperate attempt to save himself, Alrak offered to immortalize the abhorrent in epic versus.

Some champion.

Amused by the idea, Mujalabrin agreed to keep the bard alive until he could write no more.

The abhorrent has an ego and a sense of humor.

Scholars estimate it took Alrak 115 years to complete his 125,925 page Testimony.

That’s quite a long time. Is Alrak a non-human, then?

Alrak exhausted his limited supply of ink within the first year of composition.

Why was the supply limited? Is the haven completely cut off?

The vast majority of it seems to have been written in blood.

Ick. Human blood? His own? Whose blood?

After approximately 105 years, The Testimony of Alrak encompassed every scrap of paper in Nesda.

Why did Nesda have so much paper and so little ink?

Tests confirm that the last 8760 pages were crafted from exquisitely tanned and extravagantly trimmed skin.

Again, ick. Are we to assume it was human skin?

The original copy of The Testimony of Alrak resides in a carefully warded vault in the Great Library of Kurth.

Clues to the greater setting.

Abhorrence lore experts have long clamored for access to the Testimony.

So the testimony is now a historical document.

While Master Tinus agrees that it could provide invaluable information, he refuses to release any portion of the original document.

Who is this Master Tinus and why is he engaging in censorship?

Instead, he has elected to have to have the original copy transcribed to warded vellum, infused with True Wood using ink infused with True Earth.

Why would copies be safer than the original? What the heck is True Wood and True Earth?

No scribe has been allowed to work on more than 9 non-sequential pages.

Seems a bit excessive.

Despite these precautions, 68 of the 220 scribes working on the Testimony have since gone mad.

Is it because the text so gruesome or is there something about the document itself?

While incidences of insanity are to be expected when working with abhorrence-related material, experts agree this is a higher percentage than usual.

So it was expected that some would go crazy. Hope they get hazard pay.

Further transcriptions were halted after the scribe Paltis created duplicates of his work from memory, using ordinary ink and paper.

Why would he do that? ‘Ordinary’ is unnecessary unless it is a clue.

Paltis made a small fortune when he sold his copies to an amateur collector.

Apparently they don’t get enough hazard pay. Or this is just a very valuable item. But who would want to collect such things?

Shortly after his purchase, the collector murdered Paltis in the middle of the Bazaar.

Well that doesn’t seem like a good way to do business.

The collector was in berserk rage, screaming that Paltis was a liar and a thief.

Paltis has already been established as an unsavory sort, so that could be true. Why the berserk rage?

It took an arrow to the chest to stop the madman from killing innocent bystanders.

The collector is now a madman threatening innocent bystanders. Were other means used to subdue him or did they shoot first and ask questions later?

A search of the collector's office uncovered 8 blank sheets of paper that radiating a lingering astral aura.

Presumably the text had an affect on the ‘ordinary’ paper.

As of this writing, only 1800 of the 125,925 pages of The Testimony of Alrak have been reproduced.

That’s not much.

Master Tinus has made it clear that no further transcriptions will be created as long as he is in charge of the Library.

Probably wise, although it could put Master Tinus on someone’s hit list.


Chapter One

I have no fear of the underground.

We’ve switched to first person.

I spent my childhood under the mountains of Kurth.

Some character background.

Usually I find comfort beneath the shelter of solid stone.

More character background.

But the halls of Kurth echo with vitality.

World building and a clue that we are somewhere other than Kurth. But still no action.

There is a restless silence about this place.

So wherever we are, it’s quiet. But what is a restless silence?

It is not the empty hush of a forgotten tomb.

The character is familiar with tombs. A treasure hunter, maybe?

There is a palpable sense of malice lurking in this silence.

Not sure we need the word ‘palpable’. We get it. The place is creepy. Still no action.

I was nine years of age when I first told my father of my wish to search for lost havens.

More character background.

In a futile attempt to dissuade me from that path, he reserved a three-page excerpt of the Testimony of Alrak for my edification.

I’ve heard of tough love, but why would anyone let a nine-year-old read something that might drive the kid crazy?

Given the documents reputation, he must have called in more than one favor to obtain it.

Dad has connections.

As chilling as Alrak's account is, it did not prepare me for my first contact with a living abhorrent.

So by this time the character has since had contact with an abhorrent.

The estimation that this is a young abhorrent only deeps my self-deprecation.

A young abhorrent? Is that why our character is still alive?

I can only assume that every member of the party is now marked.

So there are other characters around somewhere. Sounds like being marked is a bad thing.

While I cannot be certain that my own faculties have not been destroyed, it appears my husband's mind is now a devil's playground because of my audacity.

Finally, the main character has a gender. (At least, I assume so.) And a new character is introduced—the husband. What ever she did has affected her husband and possibly herself.

I should have taken his council when he suggested we return to town.

They could have turned back but didn’t. Back from what?

But my pride was not content to face the condescension of Councilman Stark with the paltry amount of information we had collected.

What a mess of a sentence. How about “But I was too proud to face Councilman Stark’s condescension for collecting such a paltry amount of information.” A new character is introduced and the only one with a name thus far. What's up with that?

Thanks to me, most party members are severely injured, many are trying to kill one another, and the some are missing.

Sounds like a large party. And they are in trouble. But we still have not seen any action and we still do not know what is going on.

My hubris may well be the destruction of us all.

More hints of gloom and doom. More guilt-ridden angst. This is getting a little tiring. Get on with it.


-----------------------

Four paragraphs into the first chapter and the main character still has no name, there has been no action, and we are still not clear on the setting. It’s all tone and no substance. The author is clearly trying to manipulate the reader’s emotion, but I don’t think we have established enough connection with the nameless main character to feel for her. At this point I’m more interested in the events from the preface than I am in the first person account.

[reph]

... i'm intensely amused by this, in a "laughing with you, not at you" sort of way. But since it isn't supposed to be amusing, i feel odd about it.

It isn't supposed to be amusing? It sure fooled me. All that use of exaggeration. And the vaguely Near East/Muslim setting–and suddenly "Councilman Stark." With that name, for all I know, he represents a middle-class district in New Jersey.

[Crusader]

@reph:

Oy vey, you have a point. Now that i look at it again, i'm not seeing Conan the Barbarian and hearing drums like i was before: now i'm sensing Terry Pratchett. i guess the preface could read either straight or comedic; i'm just presuming straight, as there is an attempt (if uneven) at gravitas.

It's interesting that you see a Middle Eastern angle; so do i, the images in my head are of sand dunes and dusty crypts and such. It would be interesting to have that vision turned upside down by a revelation that the setting is, say, a forested, alpine area.

And yes, the name of 'Stark' jangles now that you mention it.


@detante:

Nice critique. It's really neat to see inside another reader's mind like this. You also clued me in to things i missed. Most notably...

Alrak exhausted his limited supply of ink within the first year of composition.
"Why was the supply limited? Is the haven completely cut off?"

Aside from being a funny comment, it's a wake-up slap: this haven is raided, one guy is left, he makes a deal with the devil, and then... life just went on for 115 years. Didn't anyone in the vicinity stop by to check on relatives, friends, business partners? Did anyone trade with or have communications with this haven prior to the siege, so as to miss the haven when it was gone, and so as to go searching for revenge/a bodycount/to loot the place?

And, just how did the Testament get back to civilisation, anyway, if nobody could be bothered to visit the haven for 115+ years in the first place?

Also...

Whatever she did has affected her husband and possibly herself.

Another good point. You've reminded us that the narrator is announcing she's unreliable; anything she says could be suspect.

[maestrowork]

I won't crit the preface, since it's not technically part of the story.

I have no fear of the underground. I spent my childhood under the mountains of Kurth.

Setting up the protagonist. I wonder what "the underground" is. I don't think it's literal, but it could be.

Usually I find comfort beneath the shelter of solid stone. But the halls of Kurth echo with vitality. There is a restless silence about this place. It is not the empty hush of a forgotten tomb. There is a palpable sense of malice lurking in this silence.

Nice description of the setting. Good use of the five senses. Narrative voice seems strong -- you can tell that the narrator is "telling" a story. But it's in present tense... so it's a little weird.

I was nine years of age when I first told my father of my wish to search for lost havens.

Mention of lost havens. Hopefully it's intriguing.

In a futile attempt to dissuade me from that path, he reserved a three-page excerpt of the Testimony of Alrak for my edification.

If I've read the preface, I'd know what the Testimony of Alrak is. If not, I'll not know.

Given the documents reputation, he must have called in more than one favor to obtain it.

Is it the original? Or just a copy? From just the narrative itself, I can only guess that it's very valuable and sacred or something.


As chilling as Alrak's account is, it did not prepare me for my first contact with a living abhorrent.

It jumps immediately to the "abhorrent." I find it a little jarring. It goes from his dwelling to the Testimony of Alrak to immediately the abhorrent. Meanwhile, if I have not read the preface at all, I'd have no idea what he's talking about. Does any of these have to do with "the underground" in the first sentence?

The estimation that this is a young abhorrent only deeps my self-deprecation. I can only assume that every member of the party is now marked.

"Deeps" is a strange word... I was expecting "deepends" so it caught me off guard. Also, I'm not sure what "member of party is marked" means. What party?


While I cannot be certain that my own faculties have not been destroyed, it appears my husband's mind is now a devil's playground because of my audacity.

The gender of the narrator is known at this time. Some characterization of both the narrator and her husband. The transition is a little abrupt, but I assume the narrator and the husband is part of the "party." Now it seems to me that they have been doing some expedition or something. And perhaps the "underground" thing in the first line makes more sense here, if they're exploring undergrounds, caves, etc.


I should have taken his council when he suggested we return to town.

Sensing something bad is about the happen.


But my pride was not content to face the condescension of Councilman Stark with the paltry amount of information we had collected.

Characterization.

Thanks to me, most party members are severely injured, many are trying to kill one another, and the some are missing. My hubris may well be the destruction of us all.

So due to the narrator's action, people are severely injured and they've gone insane -- possibly including the narrator's husband.

I like the narrator's voice, even though this genre (historical/fantasy?) is not my cup of tea. I'm not sure if I'd want to read on, but it certainly has something going on. What is the abhorrent (considering that I haven't read the preface)? What happened to the party?

I find the present tense distracting though. Clearly the events of this story have already happened -- it's quite evident in the storyteller's narrative voice. But the use of present tense prompts me to think it's real time. So I'm not very comfortable with this contradition.

I generally find this excerpt confusing.

[Crusader]

@maestrowork:

Do read the preface, good sir.

But, you've highlighted a good point; anyone who skips the preface here would be utterly helpless for awhile (assuming that the events of the preface are even recounted in the novel at all). And, it's interesting to see a crit of what the first page itself looks like, sans backstory; "confusing" is apt.

[detante]

Yet another reason I don't like the use of a preface. Too many people skip them. If it's important to the story, the author should work it into the story. I think the preface is better than chapter one, although both are tragically overwritten. The author is trying too hard.

[reph]

...both are tragically overwritten. The author is trying too hard.

Either that or the author is deliberately producing humor. I took it as the latter. If I were to cast this for actors, I'd see whether Monty Python was available. The idea of a manuscript that causes insanity reminds me of Python's bit about the joke that's so funny it's fatal. Everyone who hears it dies laughing, and so it has to be carefully guarded, or warded, as the case may be.

[Crusader]

Mm, here's a thought: compare this piece to Oath of Swords, which very liberally put all the exposition in the character's head instead of a prologue.

Between the two, i honestly disliked the "character pauses to mull over the entire history of the world" tactic, far more than i might dislike pausing my headlong dash for Chapter One so that i can read a preface.

[trying not to smirk] And argh, while i didn't mind giggling politely at the preface, the new thought of Monty Python aping it is too much...

[detante]

Either that or the author is deliberately producing humor.

I have to admit I had not consider that possibility. That puts a new spin on things.

[maestrowork]

OK, if you believe the author is trying for humor, what would your critique be like now... does it work?

Let's do it again, assuming that the author is aiming for humor...

[Crusader]

All right; once more into the haven, dear friends...

* * *

The Testimony of Alrak was reportedly written by the last known survivor of a Nesda, a small haven in the foothills of the Frenas Mountains. Nesda's wards were incomplete when the Vex hit. The abhorrent, Mujalabrin, easily slipped into the haven and ravaged its inhabitants.

Not really funny, up till "the Vex hit". 'Vex' could be short for 'vexation', which is a funny play-on-words. Still, i rate this as serious.


Mujalabrin took a special interest in Nesda's only champion, Alrak the Bard. Alrak's talent was great, but his will was not. In a desperate attempt to save himself, Alrak offered to immortalize the abhorrent in epic versus. Amused by the idea, Mujalabrin agreed to keep the bard alive until he could write no more.

Funny, if the tone is mocking Alrak as being a cowardly sort who would barter anything to stay alive. However, there's a sinister, unfunny aspect of being locked in a tomb with a demon, forced to write to save one's life. Tossup.


Scholars estimate it took Alrak 115 years to complete his 125,925 page Testimony. Alrak exhausted his limited supply of ink within the first year of composition. The vast majority of it seems to have been written in blood. After approximately 105 years, The Testimony of Alrak encompassed every scrap of paper in Nesda. Tests confirm that the last 8760 pages were crafted from exquisitely tanned and extravagantly trimmed skin.

Funny. i might guess this is where reph fiinds the preface to be exaggerative, and where detante finds it to be overwritten. The details just sound absurd... 115 years? Ran out of ink? Such a precise number of pages? The emphasis "every scrap of paper"? (i'm wondering what the poor fellow used in the lavatory, then.) Tanned human skin, words written in blood? (hearkens to the Evil Dead movies and their farcical Necronomicon, the Book of the Dead).


The original copy of The Testimony of Alrak resides in a carefully warded vault in the Great Library of Kurth. Abhorrence lore experts have long clamored for access to the Testimony. While Master Tinus agrees that it could provide invaluable information, he refuses to release any portion of the original document. Instead, he has elected to have to have the original copy transcribed to warded vellum, infused with True Wood using ink infused with True Earth. No scribe has been allowed to work on more than 9 non-sequential pages. Despite these precautions, 68 of the 220 scribes working on the Testimony have since gone mad. While incidences of insanity are to be expected when working with abhorrence-related material, experts agree this is a higher percentage than usual.

Uneven/funny. The tone starts out straight, then has mirthful elements (someone pointed the overly complicated scribing process). The last sentence is rather punchy, it bloody well does sound like Monty Python or Pratchett.


Further transcriptions were halted after the scribe Paltis created duplicates of his work from memory, using ordinary ink and paper. Paltis made a small fortune when he sold his copies to an amateur collector. Shortly after his purchase, the collector murdered Paltis in the middle of the Bazaar. The collector was in berserk rage, screaming that Paltis was a liar and a thief. It took an arrow to the chest to stop the madman from killing innocent bystanders. A search of the collector's office uncovered 8 blank sheets of paper that radiating a lingering astral aura.

Inconclusive.. It could read as a satire or as a serious (if dubious) account. Either the effects of the Testament are being mocked, or they're being played up as potent.


As of this writing, only 1800 of the 125,925 pages of The Testimony of Alrak have been reproduced. Master Tinus has made it clear that no further transcriptions will be created as long as he is in charge of the Library.

Straight. If it's supposed to be funny, i'm not seeing a joke. Mainly comes across as plain old exposition.


Chapter One

I have no fear of the underground. I spent my childhood under the mountains of Kurth. Usually I find comfort beneath the shelter of solid stone. But the halls of Kurth echo with vitality. There is a restless silence about this place. It is not the empty hush of a forgotten tomb. There is a palpable sense of malice lurking in this silence.

This utterly makes it too difficult for me to call the whole piece humour. When i first read it, i was hit by the POV transition, but it's more than that now; i see that part of the shock was that the elements that made me chuckle are gone. This feels straight, serious, and honest.


I was nine years of age when I first told my father of my wish to search for lost havens. In a futile attempt to dissuade me from that path, he reserved a three-page excerpt of the Testimony of Alrak for my edification. Given the documents reputation, he must have called in more than one favor to obtain it.

Since we've seen the "effects" of the Testimony in the preface, it's really hard to laugh at the thought of a child being driven mad. The father's action is sobering and even offensive. It could interpreted as black humour, maybe... but as it stands, i find it straight.


As chilling as Alrak's account is, it did not prepare me for my first contact with a living abhorrent. The estimation that this is a young abhorrent only deeps my self-deprecation. I can only assume that every member of the party is now marked.

Straight.


While I cannot be certain that my own faculties have not been destroyed, it appears my husband's mind is now a devil's playground because of my audacity. I should have taken his council when he suggested we return to town. But my pride was not content to face the condescension of Councilman Stark with the paltry amount of information we had collected. Thanks to me, most party members are severely injured, many are trying to kill one another, and the some are missing. My hubris may well be the destruction of us all.

97.3% straight. Thanks to reph, i can't take Councilman Stark seriously. Otherwise, this is a person confessing their sins; i don't see any humour in that (melodrama, yes; humour, no).

* * *

Overall score: i have no idea. i see the humour, but it would need a rewrite to truly be captured. The drama (melodrama?) stands out without a rewrite, Conan be damned.

And i still like it, but i'm starting to feel that the horse has been flogged halfway into mulch. i really, really want to move on to find out what happens next, to see if the drama progresses or falls apart.

[Gala]

I am scrolling through these long analyses, not interested. Nothing personal. I wish they were in SYW or their own thread. Saves the wrist.

It's Uncle's thread. To my mind, it's his thang.

Just an fyi. Now I'm going to bed. Will check back next year in prayer of Uncle stuff.

Happy Holidays from the Cosmic forces.

[sc211]

I agree. I'm sure Uncle Jim's glad he got people looking closely at openings and seeing what works and what doesn't, and why, but it's taken over the thread and deserves one of its own.

[HConn]

Finally able to reply after several crazy days--

What happened to my 12/22 post? Can someone explain it to me?

Thus my statement was clearly describing a hypothetical, potential attitude that i was warning against.

Since you were actually replying to someone, you shouldn't have used quotes as though implying that the person had said those words.

... i might compare it to the example someone mentioned of house-building. There's a certain base standard that houses are designed to meet--four walls, a roof, and a door. Then a notch above that--water, sewer, wiring. Then a notch above that--air conditioning (heating and cooling), appliances.

In that light, no matter how unique the end result may be, the actual product is built up to meet certain standards along a range of progression from start to finish. Miss or mangle a stage--"Doors are optional, aren't they?"--and you have something that will strike a discerning mind as incomplete.

But I would suggest that most of the folks on this forum do not have a realistic grip on the "base standard."



Finally, Uncle Jim, this latest turn of the thread was your idea (and thanks to detante for jumping in and providing a snippet; she knows, from another list, that I'm up to my armpits in in-laws right now. Somebody kill me. When I saw Jim's challenge, I groaned. I knew I'd have to post something, but I was at a loss as to where I could find it and when I could find the time.)

But since this latest twist was your idea, what do you think of what's come of it? And what did you intend the exercise to illustrate?

What I get out of it is this: Don't bother with the Share Your Work forum, because the crits you get here have nothing to do with publishability.

-----------------------

And on that note, I want to sincerely wish everyone here a happy holidays. And this Santa is exhausted. Good night.

[reph]

I'm sure Uncle Jim's glad he got people looking closely at openings and seeing what works and what doesn't, and why, but it's taken over the thread and deserves one of its own.

We could all delete our posts when the discussion is over.

[maestrowork]

Gala, it was Uncle Jim's idea that we posted something and did the analysis. Sorry you find that uninteresting.

But if people want us to stop, or move the discussions to another thread, that's cool. We're here to illustrated some of the analysis Uncle Jim was doing, applying to either published or unpublished work. I think they have merits. But if Uncle Jim objects to the hijacking, let's move it somewhere.

[Crusader]

7/26/04 - JimMorcombe wondered if Grisham was breaking the rules that James D Macdonald recommends.

7/27/04 - Mr. Macdonald agreed to read a few Grisham works, read them, then the topic was interrupted.

12/21/04 - Mr. Macdonald conscientiously revived the question and provided a once-over for The Street Lawyer, in which he demonstrated his thoughts on whether Grisham followed or violated any rules. Discussion ensued. maestrowork wondered how critical the discussion would have been, if the work had been an unpublished item from an unheralded writer. Mr. Macdonald did not comment. maestrowork later mentioned a new thread in SYW so that board members could critique using Mr. Macdonald's line-by-line method.

12/22/04 maestrowork, in response to a comment from detante, repeated his earlier question. HConn responded by suggesting that board members are ill-qualified to critique a work. Mr. Macdonald responded by suggesting that two pages of a work could be posted in this thread for a line-by-line critique, though he didn't specify whether "we" meant himself and HConn, or himself and any other board member in general.

And from that, several members proceeded to analyze several works, leading to the current complaint that the thread has been occluded, obstructed, halted, derailed, sent on a tangent, or whathaveyou.

* * *

i observe...

-There was indeed a thread made in SYW for the purpose of line-by-line critique.

-Mr. Macdonald was the person to suggest line-by-line critique in this thread--his thread.

-In this context, HConn seems to have a low opinion of opinions other than his own.

-The original question which started this tangent, was answered a long time ago: Mr. Macdonald apparently doesn't find that his recommended rules are broken by John Grisham's writing in The Street Lawyer.

-maestrowork's question was likewise answered: This group does not seem to critique differently if the work in question is published or unpublished, or if the author is well-known or unknown.

[maestrowork]

Great summary, Crusader.

There IS a thread, currently in SYW, for anyone interested to do line-by-line critiques. We can expand that to "published" or "unpublished" work (instead of just members' WIPs) if you want. But so far, no one is biting...

Or we can just let this die a horrible death here. It's fine by me.

I think it's a fun exercise for both the critters and the crittees. I certainly learned a few things about analyzing whether something "works" or "not works" based on a reader's analysis, instead of wearing my writer's glasses.

[sc211]

No offense to anyone was meant. It just reminded me of when in college, when a couple of the other students would get into a discussion between themselves that was valid and informative for those interested, but took away from class time.

But of course, in cyberspace there is no time, and again, like any good teacher, I'm sure Uncle Jim's glad to have inspired it all.

Merry Christmas.

[maestrowork]

If you look closely into this whole thread, though, you'd notice it's hardly just Uncle Jim's lectures and homework. There were lively, off-the-wall and on a tangent discussions.

However, point taken about the "a few students going off on sidebar discussions, disrupting the class" feeling, even though I don't agree. And until Uncle Jim complains about us running amuck, I'll continue to be the naughty boy.

[pencilone]

Merry Christmas Everyone!

I'm wondering if anyone managed to write some words (or any words) on their novel today... Not me though...:| Maybe I'm forgiven because at least I thought about it?:b

(HConn, I cannot help feeling sorry for you, but keep tight, it's almost over;) )

Best Wishes and A Happy New Year,

Pencilone

[maestrowork]

Here's the link to the SYW exercise, if anyone wants to play outside of this thread.

p197.ezboard.com/fabsolut...=571.topic (http://p197.ezboard.com/fabsolutewritefrm31.showMessage?topicID=571.topic)

[HConn]

Pencil, I wish it was almost over--we're having a five-week visit.

Anyway, I hope we don't delete all our posts at the end of the discussion. I would hope they would stay for the edification of late-comers. This thread still comes up as the top result when I google the words learn writing.

Something that's been troubling me about the way we talk about writing and the way we examine each other's work, is that the conversations seem based on things that don't affect a book's publishability or sales.

I find it difficult to examine these excerpts from successful works and continue to worry about what POV I'm using or whether I'm following some rule or other.

Cripes, I want to take part in this thread, but the loud family is shouting at each other over some card game they're playing. It's impossible to think around here.

Let me leave with one more disjointed comment. Uncle Jim's initial examination of Grisham's work was not about finding the flaws in it, or about pointing out all the things it was trying to do but failing. It was about the effect the writing had on him. If a sentence was a bit mysterious or if it left some questions unanswered, the author was assumed to be creating suspense.

When others critique, they talk about how much information they don't have or annoyingly vague something is. (I'm being deliberately general because I don't want to point fingers at specific people.)

I'd spend more time thinking about this, if I didn't have to go make three different Christmas dinners for our visiting fussy eaters. :( But I think we need to rethink our assumptions about what makes one piece of writing work for readers and what makes another fail.

Lastly, I've only been able to read here intermittently and post even less. If my posts seem terse, it's because of time and space pressures, not because of anything going on here.

Happy Holidays.

[detante]

I understand how some would be uninterested in the analysis, even if it was done at Uncle Jim's request. I also agree that Uncle Jim's analysis highlighted the things that worked and explained why, instead of trying to re-write. As a reader, I think Grisham's was the best of the works posted.

HC, hang in there buddy.

Happy holidays to all!
Jen

[maestrowork]

In all fairness I think I tried to do it right -- highlighting what I think works and what doesn't, instead of saying "this should be rewritten this way or that. And the POV is wrong here, and the word choice is icky there..." I take offense at the suggestion that just because something is published, we should only look for the good parts. I think we can learn a lot from what "doesn't work" even in published work. For example, it's good to see how the excerpt of "The Street Lawyer" works, and how Patterson made mistakes in "Sam's Letters to Jennifer."

[detante]

In all fairness I think I tried to do it right

I agree and said as much in an earlier post.

Myself, I don't think we should only point out the good parts in published works. There are plenty of books in print that make me scratch my head wondering why they wasted the paper to print them.

What I take from this exercise:
-Even published writers make mistakes.
-Nothing pleases everyone.
-Anything can be re-written.

There are lots of wrong ways to write a story, but no right way.

Jen

[Crusader]

There are lots of wrong ways to write a story, but no right way.

Hm. i can see where that is coming from. Yet i don't think i'd comfortable with telling that to a writer who asked me for advice. [pondering] But what would i prefer to say? Errrrr...

"Aim your pen at the hearts and minds of your audience. You'll know from the response of the majority, if your aim was true."

Blah, this is as hard as it looks. i just don't cotton to vaguely telling someone "there isn't a right way", because to me, intuitively, there is a right way. The right way is... composed of... sidestepping all the wrong ways... and... the wrong way is... composed of... missing the right way.

(Whoa, i just channeled William Shatner...)

[HConn]

What I take from this exercise:

We put too much attention on things that don't matter very much.

[Writing Again]

There is only one right way to write a story and only one wrong way.

The right way to write a story is to obtain and maintain the reader's interest from the first page to the last page and still want more when it is done. There are many many tools with which a writer can do this, some writers master many of these tools, some only a few of them. Few if any master all of them.

What separates a commercial writer from other types of writers is that the commercial writer seeks to keep as many people as possible interested in the story while other writers seek the interest of a smaller, more specialized audience. One is neither better than the other nor easier than the other, but they do provide a definition of success and they pose the question, "Does the work that fails to please its target audience but pleases another audience a success or a failure?" (Is Ray Bradbury a failed science fiction writer? Or a successful story teller who raised the genre up a notch?)

The wrong way to tell a story is to bore the audience. One of the most common faults is lack of understanding of what makes a good story. The other most common fault is telling the story poorly. Oddly grammar, the first thing attacked or defended in a novel, is of no importance if either of the first two fail.

[Writing Again]

I don't see a parallel between this thread going on a tangent and a classroom.

For one thing to me everything relates to writing whether it is the crumbs at the bottom of a cookie jar or the light of a star yet to be discovered. You can't veer far from the subject, you can just take it one way, then another, and bring it back.

For another unlike a classroom you can always scroll past anything that is not of interest.

Last but not least I have never had a teacher who could maintain my interest in a subject. Teachers want your undivided attention until something sparks your interest and you ask a question about it, then they recoil in horror because they never studied the subject enough to be able to provide an answer. I always found the disruptive elements to be far more interesting and educational.

So far one of the most encouraging aspects to me is that I have seldom found a post in this thread that did not take me longer to think about than it did to read.

[maestrowork]

We put too much attention on things that don't matter very much.

If stilted dialogue, confusing narratives, cliches, verb tense changes, poor character development, etc. don't matter much, may I ask, what matters to you?

Why bother being a writer if we find those things "don't matter"?

[Crusader]

Well, maestrowork, you have to bear in mind that most of the folks on this forum do not have a realistic grip on the 'base standard'. They're people who think they know better but don't, so the crits you get here have nothing to do with publishability. They aren't harmful, necessarily, except that it encourages people to focus on the wrong elements.

Of course, by implication, i know best what is publishable, i know what the correct elements are... and so I would like to focus people's energy and attention on things that will be truly helpful. i mean, you all just are putting too much energy on things that don't matter very much.

[reph]

Crusader, taking a purely commercial perspective for a moment, those things do matter to acquisitions editors.

[Crusader]

reph, do you realize what i'm apparently saying? i'm apparently saying that the point of focus should be on the "things that matter to acquisitions editors." That is apparently what i'm saying. Apparently.

[maestrowork]

Well, we can certainly play that, too, by focusing on "what matters." Probably things like:

1) how to create suspense or interest
2) how to effectively create a page-turner
3) what makes a character come to life?

As Uncle Jim asked at the end of "The Street Lawyer" analysis: A show of hands, who wants to find out what happens next?

[maestrowork]

Acquisition editors care about it all, and not just "does the story have enough suspense." Grammar, style, mechanics, dialogue, etc. etc. etc. are all important to the editors. That's why I don't see how "well, it keeps me interested" is going to be good enough, unless you're one of those established writers who could write crap and people would still buy their books...

[Crusader]

@maestrowork:
Well, we can certainly play that, too, by focusing on "what matters." Probably things like:

1) how to create suspense or interest
2) how to effectively create a page-turner
3) what makes a character come to life?

* * *

Acquisition editors care about it all, and not just "does the story have enough suspense."...

Mm, good enough summary for me. i commend you for not taking my 'devil's advocate' act too seriously, yet still taking it seriously (if that makes sense). And i'm sure the actual speaker meant well, it was just worded in an off-putting way.

Beyond all that, i have read elsewhere that the job of the editor is comparable to the job of representatives and executives in government, insofar as the editor is indirectly entrusted by the people to select the books that will appeal to the people. So by that argument, what works for the editor, works for the people. [Edit: And so what we non-editors say, is therefore irrelevant.]

[shrugs] Dunno. It's interesting to debate, however.

[detante]

. . . I don't see how "well, it keeps me interested" is going to be good enough, unless you're one of those established writers who could write crap and people would still buy their books...

I believe Grisham, Patterson & Holt's pieces could fall into this catagory. But Weber's piece was from one of his earlier books. Did he have enough of a following at that time?

[maestrowork]

That's a good question, and one to ponder how one (an unknown author) gets published. I haven't read the rest of Weber's book so perhaps it's actually a wonderful read. I just don't know, but I wasn't impressed with the first few pages, that's for sure.

[detante]

I'm a slave to the genre, so I probably would have read the first two or three chapters before deciding if Weber was worth reading. Same goes for the uncredited work.

I found Grisham interesting. Not interesting enough to run out and purchase, but if I had book in hand, I would read more.

Holt and Patterson didn't hold my interest, though. I doubt I'd read either book unless I was snowed in with nothing else to do.

[reph]

reph, do you realize what i'm apparently saying?

Apparently not. You appeared to say that the things we were discussing, such as grammar and character depth, don't matter to publishability. But that was just an appearance.

[Writing Again]

Acquisition editors care about it all, and not just "does the story have enough suspense." Grammar, style, mechanics, dialog, etc. etc. etc. are all important to the editors. That's why I don't see how "well, it keeps me interested" is going to be good enough, unless you're one of those established writers who could write crap and people would still buy their books...

First you need to realize that no matter how badly you write, or have ever written -- There is someone out there who has written far worse -- And has submitted it.

Everyone who contributes to this forum, and I do mean everyone, comes here with the realization that no matter how well or how poorly they write they can learn to do better, they can improve.

There are a lot of people out there who are incapable of realizing they do not write better than Stephen King, or realizing they cannot write as well as Shakespeare. When they are rejected they do not ask, "What did I do wrong?" or "How can I improve?": Then curse the editors as fools and idiots who did not understand them.

When I was young I complained that it was unfair that a new writer had to write better than the average selling writer. An editor explained it to me simply, "Once you start selling, once you start hitting deadlines, your quality of writing will go down. It is inevitable. If your first novel is not above the average then your future novels will be below the average."

Established writers don't so much "get by with writing crap" as they are pushed into it. Every contract I ever signed committed me to have a new novel written within a year. Nothing obligated the publisher to buy it.

So in your first novel you need to aim for the highest quality you can possibly achieve.

Next you have to realize that what the acquisitions editor has to choose from is what they have in front of them. They have so many slots to fill. They will select the very best to fill them.

Also remember there are many aspects to writing a good novel. Most good writers maximize their assets and minimize their liabilities. If you are tops at narrative and lousy at dialog then don't write dialog driven stories.


This is part of the crap shoot. If you submit at the same time as the next Stephen King, Gresham, etc are submitting your ms will fall lower down the pile. If you happen to submit when the worst of the worst are dumping garbage your ms will rise higher in the pile.

So what is the acquisitions editor looking for now?

The answer is something that can be sold: Something that holds the editor's interest.

So what you need to do is to write a story that is above the average published story that is out there, that is an interesting story in and of itself, as well written as you can make it, then hope for the best.

[maestrowork]

That's why these analysis could be invaluable.

[Writing Again]

A lot of people believe that I denigrate grammar. I do not. What I do believe is that many writers place far too little emphasis on the craft of telling a good story.

They do not understand plot, structure, conflict, or character; they do not concern themselves with goals, either inner goals or outer goals nor how to create opposition to those goals; they often ignore the inner life of their characters in spite of the fact this is what a novel does best; They seldom concern themselves with the interactions of their characters with each other or with the environment.

The story is what drives the novel the way an engine drives a car. How the story is told is equivalent to the body style and grammar is equivalent to the paint job. A car without decent style will not be appealing and one with no paint is going to look pretty bad, but without an engine it simply is not going any place at all.

[HConn]

If stilted dialogue, confusing narratives, cliches, verb tense changes, poor character development, etc. don't matter much, may I ask, what matters to you?

A good story.

Why bother being a writer if we find those things "don't matter"?

Thanks for cutting off the last two words of my sentence to change the meaning. :rolleyes

Crusader, now you're posting out-of-context exerpts from my reply to your PM? That's dirty pool. And if you think anything I've said implies I "know best what is publishable" then you haven't been paying attention.

1) how to create suspense or interest
2) how to effectively create a page-turner
3) what makes a character come to life?

:D

I'd drive a car without paint. It's probably the only kind I could afford.

[sc211]

"What I do believe is that many writers place far too little emphasis on the craft of telling a good story."

I had this illness once, and I got it from school, where you're always writing with someone looking over your shoulder, ready to point out the misplaced comma and misspelled word. Where you're taught how to dissect a story - not how to bring one to life.

It wasn't until I got into music that I realized you had to let the first draft sing, just jam it out and capture the emotion of it all, and only then go back and refine it. To make it leaner while keeping its pulse.

As they say in the studios, "Lay it down dirty and play it back clean."

[Velleity]

I've been enjoying the first-two-pages exercises myself. I wouldn't mind seeing a thread devoted to it.

What I've been getting out of it how some of these openings set up promises for the rest of the book. The two Grisham openers do this, as does the Holt. On the other hand, Weber's too tangled up in backstory infodump to get any other information across, and as for the Patterson -- I'll just pretend I never read that....

The latest opener sets up promises in its prologue, all right -- this is going to be a novel of decadence, demons, and madness. But the first chapter immediately starts delivering on those promises without making any new ones. By the end of page 2 I'm wondering if there's going to be anything to this book besides horror and insanity. It's not a failed opening by any stretch, but it's going too far too quickly.

So, how about that first-two-pages thread? I promise I'll contribute an opening gambit or two.

[Writing Again]

If stilted dialog, confusing narratives, cliches, verb tense changes, poor character development, etc. don't matter much, may I ask, what matters to you?

While no novel could survive all of that many novels could survive some of it and I think most do to some degree.

The James Bond concept of fleshing a character out by calling her P#$$y Galore or him Jaws rings a bit cartoony; shades of Dick Tracy.

I would probably place confusing narrative as a worse sin than stilted dialog, unless there was a lot of dialog. Cliches are probably the easiest to overcome; while they do not brighten up a narrative they do tend to disappear in the woodwork.

I use to write good dialog by a sort of instinct. For some reason this no longer happens and I have to spruce it up on a pass through all of its own. If I'm ever in a real hurry to meet a deadline I'm sure this is an area that will suffer.

While I would say these things do matter, and matter a lot, I would also say that we are all human, everyone is going to miss something once in a while; I would also say that a lot of really good writers seem to be incapable of mastering certain fundamentals -- Such as (not) writing stilted dialog.

How much should we rail against the sloppy writing of published authors?

Think about it this way: If all published writers wrote perfectly it would be even harder to break in than it already is because then we would have to writer perfectly as well.

Remember that the object is to produce something better than the average published novel. As writers we want our antagonist to be tough, but we don't want him so tough he is unbeatable.

[drgnlvrljh]

I once read a book by a sci-fi author, that was horrible. It was incredibly flat, all the way through. I genuinely wondred how he managed to get published. But he did, frequently, by the number of books he had on the shelves. I honestly thought that the one book might be a fluke. So I attempted to read another one by him. It was the same way, flat story, flat characters, flat, flat, flat. I never finished that book.

But then I started thinking seriously about my own writing, and came to the conclusion that maybe I had a chance, considering. I figured this guy must have just followed the "rules" when he submitted, and if he can get published, so can I.

Of course, that doesn't mean I'm going to send off crap that has perfect margins, font, and spelling.

But it does make me wonder, now that I know more....how -did- this guy get published? And how does he (did he? Not sure if he's still alive, even) consistantly get good reviews on his work?

[maestrowork]

I must disagree, HConn. Simply "a good story" is not enough. I've seen too many "good stories" go to waste because of poor execution. Execution is just as important as the story itself, and execution includes gramma, style, structure, dialogue, etc. At least for me, "story" is not everything. If the author cannot entrance me with good execution, to put me right inside the story and give me a ride, it doesn't matter if the story is a good one -- I wouldn't know because I wouldn't be able to finish it.

Perhaps that's just me. But perhaps by "good story" you actually meant the "execution" of a good story. Then, I guess we are in agreement. Otherwise, how would you explain why so many "good stories" get stuck in slush (as Uncle Jim told us, over 90% of mss. stay in the pile)? Why we consider someone a good writer (e.g. Grisham) instead of a bad one?

I think some of these analysis may answer the question. The things to watch out for if you want to write publishable novels. Otherwise, why are we even reading Uncle Jim's thread?


p.s. I'm also bothered by your comment that "some of us think we know better but we don't." Now, how did you come to that conclusion?

[reph]

I once read a book by a sci-fi author, that was horrible.

How old was it? During the early decades after SF got rolling, the storytelling standards were low.

[drgnlvrljh]

How old was it? During the early decades after SF got rolling, the storytelling standards were low.

Not sure. It was by Ben Bova, if that's any help. I haven't read anything by him in a long time. I didn't think it was too old, though. I've read some old 40's sci-fi and stuff, and I can excuse it, because it was the "early days". But for some reason, I couldn't excuse this stuff. I mean, it just seemed even worse than 40's sci fi (ie; green amazon women from mars stuff)

[shaynexus]

A CAST OF CARICATURES
PROLOGUE
“All the world’s a stage / And all the men and women merely players…” As You Like It, Act 11 / Scene VII William Shakespeare.

And in that vein, dear reader, allow me to pique your interest in this troupe’s imminent ‘R-rated performance’ by prefacing it with a six-year-old news item that ran in The Fresno Bee on December 30 as Joel Wassermann’s column:

(Remainder of post can be found in the Share Your Work board.)

[reph]

With the usual disclaimer about humble opinions, I say the preceding post belongs on Share Your Work. It's too long for the exercise we've been doing here.

[HConn]

I don't get a lot of free time on Mondays, so I can't really take part in the discussion right now.

But I would like to apologize to anyone offended by the tone of my posts.

[maestrowork]

I agree, Reph. I've placed it in SYW and please feel free to do your exercise/analysis there:

p197.ezboard.com/fabsolut...=571.topic (http://p197.ezboard.com/fabsolutewritefrm31.showMessage?topicID=571.topic)

(Remember, no critting grammar, punctuations, word choices, etc. Strickly analyze what the author tries to achieve and "does it work" for you as a reader...)

[reph]

Thanks, Maestro, but it's still here.

[aka eraser]

I removed all but the intro and steered folks to SYW.

[SpankyMcJedi]

Completely off the current topic, but relevant to the thread nonetheless... for Chistmas I received a copy of Strunk & White 4th Ed and after reading it I have to say this little book is full of more helpful advice than any other 'How To' on writing that I've read (especially for a newb such as myself). Not to mention that the disdain for poor grammar and word choice that E.B. White demonstrates is absolutely hilarious at times. Thanks much for the recommendation Uncle Jim!

[detante]

So, what is the conclusion of our Chapter One experiment? Are we more judgmental of published works then we are unpublished works? Do we go easier on published authors because they are published?

Jen

[reph]

I'm still waiting to hear whether the Nesda excerpt is published or un-.

[James D Macdonald]

Do we go easier on published authors because they are published?


Due to Other Commitments (TM) I haven't yet commented on the excerpts presented here.

I think you'll find that I'm equally hard on both published and un-published.

(I have, in fact, been downright cruel to published works. Not to the authors -- to the works.)

The basic thing to know is that you don't have to be as-good-as currently published writers to break in. You have to be better. This is because the publishers already have writers who are exactly as good as their current crop.

[detante]

I'm still waiting to hear whether the Nesda excerpt is published or un-.

That one is drawer fodder.

Jen

[reph]

That one is drawer fodder.

Is it embarrassing when readers disagree on whether a work was meant to be humorous or serious?

Feel free to consult the writer and get back to us later on that. :)

[detante]

Is it embarrassing when readers disagree on whether a work was meant to be humorous or serious?

Feel free to consult the writer and get back to us later on that. :)

LOL It wasn't too bad. I was serious when I said it was tragically overwritten. I knew what I was getting into when I posted it.

Edited to add: It's drawer fodder for a reason. :)

[Diviner]

Strunk and White is pure gold, indeed, but I have almost no ability to read _Logical Chess_. Would that have any relationship to my general inability to follow an outline even when I go to the trouble to create one? :eek

Help! What should I do with this book, or should I just give it to my son?

[JimMorcombe]

I think that most advice about writing is written against a back-drop of other books and pieces of advice. An "authoritative author" will have read 150 other books on "How to Write" and this influences the advice he passes on.

He will reguard some books as "stating the obvious" and hence will not pass on any of this advice, even though there are would-be-writers out there that need the advice.

Other books will talk about topics that have been over done and he rants and raves against the advice. I think grammar usually falls into this area. It is rammed down the throats of some since they were five years old. They know grammar well enough to write. Hence the last thing they need to think about when writing a novel is grammar. So our authoritative author tells us that grammar doesn't matter. But it does matter, just not to him. To some would-be-writers this is their greatest stumbling block to publication.

After reading a lot of advice on writing, I was becoming quite upset that the "quality" of the prose didn't seem to bother anyone. I was really relieved when I picked up one of Sol Stein's books and he said "Writers write writerly prose." I felt that the sand had stopped shifting beneath my feet.

Later I realised that all the other writers assumed everyone knew that you had to write reasonably well. They were just emphasising the things they thought I didn't know and needed to be told.

[HConn]

At the end, I'd like to write out some thoughts on examining published work, but I don't want to start with that.

Let me start by quoting two works I would like to examine. The first is a little longer than usual, but I suspect that every writer who's ever read this book has wanted to write their own version of it.

<blockquote>Red Harvest
Dashiell Hammett

1-A Woman in Green and a Man in Gray

I first heard Personville called Poisonville by a red-haired mucker named Hickey Dewey in the Big Ship in Butte. He also called his shirt a shoit. I didn't think anything of what he had done to the city's name. Later I heard men who could manage their r's give it the same pronunciation. I still didn't see anything in it but the meaningless sort of humor that used to make richardsnary the thieves' word for dictionary. A few years later I went to Personville and learned better.

Using one of the phones in the station, I called the *Herald,* asked for Donald Willsson, and told him I had arrived.

"Will you come out to my house at ten this evening?" He had a pleasantly crisp voice. "It's 2101 Mountain Boulevard. Take a Broadway car, get off at Laurel Avenue, and walk two blocks west."

I promised to do that. Then I rode up to the Great Western Hotel, dumped my bags, and went out to look at the city.

The city wasn't pretty. Most of its builders had gone in for gaudiness. Maybe they had been successful at first. Since then the smelters whose brick stacks stuck up tall against a gloomy mountain to the south had yellow-smoked everything into uniform dinginess. The result was an ugly city of forty thousand people, set in an ugly notch between two ugly mountains that had been all dirtied up by mining. Spread over this was a grimy sky that looked as if it had come out of the smelters' stacks.

The first policeman I saw needed a shave. The second had a couple of buttons off his shabby uniform. The third stood in the center of the city's main intersection--Broadway and Union Street--directing traffic, with a cigar in one corner of his mouth. After that I stopped checking them up.

At nine-thirty I caught a Broadway car and followed the direction Donald Willsson had given me. They brought me to a house set in a hedged grassplot on a corner.

The maid who opened the door told me Mr. Willsson was not home. While I was explaining that I had an appointment with him a slender blonde woman of something less than thirty in green crepe came to the door. When she smiled her blue eyes didn't lose their stoniness. I repeated my explanation to her.

"My husband isn't in now." A barely noticeable accent slurred her s's. "But if he's expecting you he'll probably be home shortly."

She took me upstairs to a room on the Laurel Avenue side of the house, a brown and red room with a lot of books in it. We sat in leather chairs, half facing each other, half facing a burning coal grate, and she set about learning my business with her husband.

"Do you live in Personville?" she asked first.

"No. San Francisco."

"But this isn't your first visit?"

"Yes."

"Really? How do you like our city?"

"I haven't seen enough of it to know." That was a lie. I had. "I got in only this afternoon."

Her shiny eyes stopped prying while she said:

"You'll find it a dreary place." She returned to her digging with: "I suppose all mining towns are like this. Are you engaged in mining?"

"Not just now."

She looked at the clock on the mantel and said:

"It's inconsiderate of Donald to bring you out here and then keep you waiting, at this time of night, long after business hours."

I said it was all right.

"Though perhaps it isn't a business matter," she suggested.

I didn't say anything.

She laughed--a short laugh with something sharp in it.

"I'm not ordinarily so much of a busybody as you probably think," she said gaily. "But you're so excessively secretive that I can't help being curious. You aren't a bootlegger, are you? Donald changes them so often."

I let her get whatever she could out of a grin.

A telephone bell rand downstairs. Mrs. Willsson stretched her green-slippered feet out toward the burning coal and pretended she hadn't heard the bell. I didn't know why she thought that necessary.

She began: "I'm afraid I'll ha--" and stopped to look at the maid in the doorway.

The maid said Mrs. Willsson was wanted at the phone. She excused herself and followed the maid out. She didn't go downstairs, but spoke over an extension within earshot.

I heard: "Mrs. Willsson speaking....Yes....I beg your pardon?....Who?....Can't you speak a little louder?...*What?*... Yes....Yes....Who is this?...Hello! Hello!"

The telephone hook rattled. Her steps sounded down the hallway--rapid steps.

I set fire to a cigarette and stared it it until I heard her going down the steps. Then I went to a window, lifted an edge of the blind, and looked out at Laurel Avenue, and at the square white garage that stood in the rear of the house on that side.

Presently, a slender woman in dark coat and hat came into sight hurrying from house to garage. It was Mrs. Willsson. She drove away in a Buick coupe. I went back to my chair and waited.

Three-quarters of an hour went by. At five minutes after eleven, automobile brakes screeched outside. Two minutes later Mrs. Willsson came into the room. She had taken off hat and coat. Her face was shite, her eyes almost black.

"I'm awfully sorry," She said, her tight-lipped mouth moving jerkily, "but you've had all this waiting for nothing. My husband won't be home tonight."

I said I would be in touch with him at the *Herald* in the morning.

I went away wondering why the green toe of her left slipper was dark and damp with something that could have been blood.
</blockquote>

[HConn]

This next excerpt is from David Prill's first novel. This is shorter than the previous selection, but it actually comes *before* the preface. This section is somewhat equivalent to an "Encyclopedia Galactica" entry that so many readers scoff at.

But it's a good book and an interesting piece of exposition. And if you turned to the first page of the manuscript, this is the first thing you'd see.


<blockquote>The Unnatural
David Prill


*About the record*


In 1942 Janus P. Mordecai achieved immortality by embalming 1,215 victims of the Good War. This total, added to the 554 customers he had embalmed previously that year, gave him 1,769 for the season, breaking the old record of 1,616 set by Thomas H. Holmes in 1863 at the height of the Civil War. Although Holmes's record had been eclipsed, his legendary status in the annals of undertaking remained assured due to the fact that his work during the war marked the first wide-spread use of embalming, turning it into the publiclyacceptable art form it is today and placing funeral directors into the advance guard of civilization. In more primitive times, loved ones had been preserved in so-called "corpse coolers" until burial.

Mordecai's status after he broke the record was less certain. In 1955--his glory days long since behind him--Mordecau was given his unconditional release by Sunnyside Funeral Homes. Although *Shroud* magazine reported that Mordecai had a substance abuse problem, Griff Grimes, award-winning journalist at *Embalmer's Weekly,* wrote the following in his column, "Behind the Headstones":

Yes, Janus Mordecai was bedeviled by the demon schnapps. Yet I believe his real problem lies much deeper. Here was a man who found spectacular success very early in his career. After breaking Holmes's record, what was he to do for an encore? Look at the record book. His productivity in the years following his record-breaking season declined steadily; this "sophomore jinx" turned into a shortened career. Of course, events conspired against him as well; world wars dont' happen every day. The fact that he hung on so long is a tribute to the loyalty of P.T. Sunnyside. It's a sad story. We fear what the future holds for Janus Mordecai.</blockquote>

[HConn]

Here is my examination of Red Harvest.

<blockquote>Red Harvest
Dashiell Hammett

1-A Woman in Green and a Man in Gray

I first heard Personville called Poisonville by a red-haired mucker named Hickey Dewey in the Big Ship in Butte.</blockquote>

We start right off talking about a place: Personville. And I don't know what a "mucker" is, but it sounds like a guy who mucks out stables. Also, "red-haired" makes me think of the proverbial stepchild. By the casual way he mentions Butte, I think the narrator travels often, and not in the highest social circles.

<blockquote>He also called his shirt a shoit. </blockquote>

A little humor, and it reinforces the low social circles idea.

<blockquote>I didn't think anything of what he had done to the city's name. Later I heard men who could manage their r's give it the same pronunciation. I still didn't see anything in it but the meaningless sort of humor that used to make richardsnary the thieves' word for dictionary. </blockquote>

More humor. And Hammett throws the word "thieves" in there. Not only does the narrator move among the working class, he knows the underclass, too.

<blockquote>A few years later I went to Personville and learned better. </blockquote>

There's the hook: What's the deal with Personville?

<blockquote>Using one of the phones in the station, I called the *Herald,* asked for Donald Willsson, and told him I had arrived.

"Will you come out to my house at ten this evening?" He had a pleasantly crisp voice. "It's 2101 Mountain Boulevard. Take a Broadway car, get off at Laurel Avenue, and walk two blocks west."</blockquote>

Mr. Willsson is some kind of newspaper man, and he's immediately likable. He's even conscientious enough to give careful directions. And whatever Mr. Willsson needs the narrator for, he wants it handled at home. It's our first hint that the narrator is a private investigator.

<blockquote>I promised to do that. Then I rode up to the Great Western Hotel, dumped my bags, and went out to look at the city.

The city wasn't pretty. Most of its builders had gone in for gaudiness. Maybe they had been successful at first. Since then the smelters whose brick stacks stuck up tall against a gloomy mountain to the south had yellow-smoked everything into uniform dinginess. The result was an ugly city of forty thousand people, set in an ugly notch between two ugly mountains that had been all dirtied up by mining. Spread over this was a grimy sky that looked as if it had come out of the smelters' stacks. </blockquote>

Our first view of "Poisonville." The mines have not only ruined the city, but the natural environment around it, reinforcing the poison motif.

<blockquote>The first policeman I saw needed a shave. The second had a couple of buttons off his shabby uniform. The third stood in the center of the city's main intersection--Broadway and Union Street--directing traffic, with a cigar in one corner of his mouth. </blockquote>

I like how this is done. The officers here go from one sloppy guy, to a second, more careless officer, to a third cop who openly contemptuous of his uniform

<blockquote>After that I stopped checking them up.</blockquote>

Our narrator is decisive.

<blockquote>At nine-thirty I caught a Broadway car and followed the direction Donald Willsson had given me. They brought me to a house set in a hedged grassplot on a corner.

The maid who opened the door told me Mr. Willsson was not home.</blockquote>

Mr. Willsson has money. Not a beat reporter, then.

<blockquote>While I was explaining that I had an appointment with him a slender blonde woman of something less than thirty in green crepe came to the door. When she smiled her blue eyes didn't lose their stoniness. I repeated my explanation to her. </blockquote>

The unfriendliness of the city is reflected in her.

<blockquote>"My husband isn't in now." A barely noticeable accent slurred her s's. "But if he's expecting you he'll probably be home shortly."

She took me upstairs to a room on the Laurel Avenue side of the house, a brown and red room with a lot of books in it. We sat in leather chairs, half facing each other, half facing a burning coal grate, and she set about learning my business with her husband. </blockquote>

More evidence that they have money. And maybe this is my prejudice, but they have books. That means I like them.

But Mrs. Willsson is going to pry, and I'm ready to learn something about our mysterious narrator.

<blockquote>"Do you live in Personville?" she asked first.

"No. San Francisco."

"But this isn't your first visit?"

"Yes." </blockquote>

We aren't learning anything about our narrator, and I'm already suspecting that we won't.

<blockquote>"Really? How do you like our city?"

"I haven't seen enough of it to know." That was a lie. I had. "I got in only this afternoon."

Her shiny eyes stopped prying while she said:

"You'll find it a dreary place." </blockquote>

Back to Poisonville again. The city and the kind of city it is keeps coming up in the text. It's going to play a major part in the book.

<blockquote>She returned to her digging with: "I suppose all mining towns are like this. Are you engaged in mining?"

"Not just now."

She looked at the clock on the mantel and said:

"It's inconsiderate of Donald to bring you out here and then keep you waiting, at this time of night, long after business hours."

I said it was all right.

"Though perhaps it isn't a business matter," she suggested.

I didn't say anything.

She laughed--a short laugh with something sharp in it.

"I'm not ordinarily so much of a busybody as you probably think," she said gaily. "But you're so excessively secretive that I can't help being curious. You aren't a bootlegger, are you? Donald changes them so often."

I let her get whatever she could out of a grin.</blockquote>

After trying several different tactics, Mrs. Willsson hasn't managed to extract any information from the narrator. She has managed to reveal that the Willssons are not without their underworld connections.

<blockquote>A telephone bell rand downstairs. Mrs. Willsson stretched her green-slippered feet out toward the burning coal and pretended she hadn't heard the bell. I didn't know why she thought that necessary. </blockquote>

Anytime a narrator notices something strange going on, it catches our attention.

<blockquote>She began: "I'm afraid I'll ha--" and stopped to look at the maid in the doorway.

The maid said Mrs. Willsson was wanted at the phone. She excused herself and followed the maid out. She didn't go downstairs, but spoke over an extension within earshot. </blockquote>

Combined with "I didn't know why she thought that was necessary" I suspect Mrs. Willsson is putting on a performance. But then:

<blockquote>I heard: "Mrs. Willsson speaking....Yes....I beg your pardon?....Who?....Can't you speak a little louder?...*What?*... Yes....Yes....Who is this?...Hello! Hello!"

The telephone hook rattled. Her steps sounded down the hallway--rapid steps.</blockquote>

The word "rattled" works nicely here, using the sound to suggest a character state that the narrator can't see.

But is Mrs. Willsson putting on a performance? I'm not so certain anymore. Or if it was a performance, something has changed.

<blockquote>I set fire to a cigarette and stared it it until I heard her going down the steps. Then I went to a window, lifted an edge of the blind, and looked out at Laurel Avenue, and at the square white garage that stood in the rear of the house on that side. </blockquote>

Character stuff about our narrator. Notice that there's no expression of concern from him. He calmly spies on her from her own house.

<blockquote>Presently, a slender woman in dark coat and hat came into sight hurrying from house to garage. It was Mrs. Willsson. She drove away in a Buick coupe. I went back to my chair and waited.</blockquote>

He's even cooler here, sitting in someone else's house when they aren't home.

And Hammett is building suspense. What could the caller have told Mrs. Willsson that she'd run off and leave a stranger--a secretive stranger at that--in her house?

<blockquote>Three-quarters of an hour went by. At five minutes after eleven, automobile brakes screeched outside. Two minutes later Mrs. Willsson came into the room. She had taken off hat and coat. Her face was white, her eyes almost black.

"I'm awfully sorry," She said, her tight-lipped mouth moving jerkily, "but you've had all this waiting for nothing. My husband won't be home tonight." </blockquote>

He's still analytical and aloof. She's trying to retain her manners, but she's obviously shattered.

<blockquote>I said I would be in touch with him at the *Herald* in the morning.

I went away wondering why the green toe of her left slipper was dark and damp with something that could have been blood.</blockquote>

To answer Uncle Jim's question--I want to read further.

[HConn]

Here's the second exerpt with my examination

<blockquote>The Unnatural
David Prill


*About the record*


In 1942 Janus P. Mordecai achieved immortality by embalming 1,215 victims of the Good War. </blockquote>

Whoa. The title makes me think this will be a horror story, but this sentence has put me in all new territory. I'm not sure where I am.

<blockquote> This total, added to the 554 customers he had embalmed previously that year, gave him 1,769 for the season, breaking the old record of 1,616 set by Thomas H. Holmes in 1863 at the height of the Civil War.</blockquote>

Embalming as sport? "Good War?" My satire alarm has gone off. And I'm wondering how dark it will get.

<blockquote> Although Holmes's record had been eclipsed, his legendary status in the annals of undertaking remained assured due to the fact that his work during the war marked the first wide-spread use of embalming, turning it into the publicly acceptable art form it is today and placing funeral directors into the advance guard of civilization.</blockquote>

Ho-kay. The setting is an alternate universe. And I'm curious.

<blockquote>In more primitive times, loved ones had been preserved in so-called "corpse coolers" until burial.</blockquote>

I'm not sure what this means. I'm looking forward to seeing something about it in the book.

<blockquote>Mordecai's status after he broke the record was less certain. In 1955--his glory days long since behind him--Mordecau was given his unconditional release by Sunnyside Funeral Homes.</blockquote>

So the big star fell on hard times and was cut from the Sunnyside team. I'm guessing that Mordecai isn't the protagonist here--he's been down the path the actual protagonist might follow if things go badly.

<blockquote>Although *Shroud* magazine </blockquote>

For filling out of the story world.

<blockquote>reported that Mordecai had a substance abuse problem, Griff Grimes, </blockquote>

Like Janus P. Mordecai, that sounds like a fakey name. So the satire will be leavened with a little silliness. That's a reassuring note.

<blockquote>award-winning journalist at *Embalmer's Weekly,* wrote the following in his column, "Behind the Headstones":

Yes, Janus Mordecai was bedeviled by the demon schnapps. Yet I believe his real problem lies much deeper. Here was a man who found spectacular success very early in his career. After breaking Holmes's record, what was he to do for an encore? Look at the record book. His productivity in the years following his record-breaking season declined steadily; this "sophomore jinx" turned into a shortened career. Of course, events conspired against him as well; world wars dont' happen every day. The fact that he hung on so long is a tribute to the loyalty of P.T. Sunnyside. It's a sad story. We fear what the future holds for Janus Mordecai.</blockquote>

So we take a moment to rehabilitate the name of Sunnyside and hit a little harder on the sports metaphor. Considering that the story is a satire of the all-American sports hero tale, (note that title again), this is a good thing.

-------------------------------------


Have I learned something from studying these opening? Mebbe. I'm a slow thinker, so anything I've learned will take a while to sink in.

But the point is not to go "easy" or "hard" on published authors--it's to look at them objectively to see what they're doing. Not what they should be doing. Not what we should be doing. Just what's there.

It seems to me that the Grisham excerpt was pretty strong storytelling. To look at that work and banter about a POV violation (I'm not singling anyone out for criticism--I don't remember who said what and I'm only picking that conversation as a convenient example) is akin to racing around a track in a sports car and then mentioning that the numbers on the speedometer are a little small.

Sure, it's good to see those little numbers. Let's make sure that happens.

But I don't want to lose focus on the things that matter. That POV comment was like a bee sting--sharp and sudden. I know there's honey around here somewhere, but I've been going about it the wrong way.

The kicker is that Uncle Jim has been pointing out the important stuff all along. He's been going through the texts of published works, showing how the authors have been creating and keeping the reader's interest. I've been reading them, nodding my head and thinking "That's cool."

But I've lately become convinced that's what I really need to study.

Yes, POV and style matters. Sure, let's get that right, too. But it's not the crucial part, and I think we should be closely examining the crucial part of writing novels.

Creating and keeping interest. Telling the story.

That's all.

[James D Macdonald]

By George he's got it! I think he's got it!

[HConn]

And it only took me 2,716 posts to figure it out!

I'm such a thick-head. <img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tired.gif" />

My next plan is to examine the opening of a book I haven't read, then compare my expectations to what really happens. Now I just have to pick the book.

[maestrowork]

The funny thing, though, is that if you take 10 readers and give them the same book, they may come out with 10 different opinions. Some may love it, some may like it, and some may hate it. Some may say "it really works; it keeps me interested" and another person may say "the story sucks, bores me to death from the first sentence." So in a way, if it's not total "slush material," it's a subjective thing.

For example, I just saw the movie "Clerks." I've heard so many great things about it, how excellent and funny it is, etc. Although I enjoyed some moments and some of the dialogue was funny, the whole thing actually bored me to tears. It didn't work for me. The same can be said about "Lost In Translation." I personally loved it, but many of my friends hated it, kind of like: WTF is so great about this bore with no plot?

So who's to judge? Are there universal standards? Or simply if a million people love it, it doesn't matter if the other million hate it?

[Crusader]

So who's to judge? Are there universal standards? Or simply if a million people love it, it doesn't matter if the other million hate it?

Intuition suggests to me that it's a matter of "common denominators." And while that concept has been tarnished in some cases of usage, i'm still willing to take a neutral and objective shot with it anyway.

So... for every book, perhaps there's a sort of virtual checklist of common denominators, and they start out very common but become rarer they go. Like, the rarer the denominator, the fewer readers will like the book.

In that vein, the least common denominator for most any book, would probably be something like "it was part of my school's curriculum". i suggest that, because:
-adults avoid books they don't like, whereas children are often compelled to read books, thus any book can have crossgenre appeal to far more children than adults
-any book that can meet school board restrictions has a high chance of being widespread

Another possible least common denominator, would be "it speaks to the common man, using common language". i base that on the thought that there are far, far more people of 'low-to-average' literacy than there are people of 'above-average-and-greater' literacy. So a book that is written in "plain English" about "basic stuff" (e.g. romance, family, comedy, everyday life) can be very accessible.

So, as far as our panel of 10 readers... much of any "universal standards" they might use to rate a given book, would come from the common denominators among themselves.

Of course, bear in mind that the book in question would have to hit the denominators accurately, believeably, compellingly, and fluidly, in order to get a good rating. Anything that blatantly pandered to or tried to manipulate common threads among readers, might well have the opposite effect. (Ironic, as this itself is a common denominator, but i digress.)

In the end, i guess that if a book managed to strike common ground in 10 out of 10 readers, while hitting enough uncommon ground to let each take something unique from it, that book would be the gold standard of "a good book"...

... and oddly enough, the only books i can think offhand that come anywhere near that gold standard, are the religious texts of major theological beliefs like Islam, Hinduism, et al.

[detante]

Many thanks to those that commented on the Alrak piece. You were kinder than it deserved.

Ignoring the spelling, grammar and tense issues, there are a number of reasons why Weber's piece is a more successful opening than my Alrak piece.

The biggest reason is that Weber's character is doing something. The character in the Alrak piece is contemplating action that has already happened, which promises flashbacks of past action instead moving the story forward.

The Alrak piece starts too far into the story. The reader is asked to feel for the character without getting to know the character first. The only thing the reader knows is that she has a guilt complex. Maybe she deserves it or maybe she's just whiny.

Another issue is setting. Weber gives enough details to imagine where the character is and how he is moving through his environment. The Alrak story does not have a sense of location, except that it is underground. The reader is floating around in the void listening to a character think. By the end of the piece, the character is still not doing anything. There's not even any indication that she will do something. Not a good way to start a story.

There is also the problem of starting with a preface. The preface helps establish the setting and the situation, but there is the problem that many folks skip the preface. Also, the shift in tone and tense is too drastic.

There are other problems with the Alrak piece, but I think those are the key issues that make it a bad beginning.

Jen

[Crusader]

Another issue is setting. Weber gives enough details to imagine where the character is and how he is moving through his environment. The Alrak story does not have a sense of location, except that it is underground.

This reminds me of an incident a long time ago, in critiquing someone else's work. The person gave me their story and i read it, then tore it apart for not establishing any sort of description about the characters or setting whatsoever. Turns out the piece was fan fiction, though. [slaps forehead]

i do recall Mr Macdonald suggesting (cue a bad paraphrase) that fan fiction is fine for fun but not necessarily good practice for writing. My experience (and later, similar incidents) all bear that out, for one reason: a fanfic author and audience have the benefit of knowing the characters and their setting beforehand. So there's no reason to flesh out Superman in my Metropolis fanfic, since most everyone knows what he looks like... yet that can lead me to bad habits of not practicing good description.

i note that this phenomenon isn't restricted to fanfic authors; some beginning authors in general make the same mistake. They see the scene in their head clearly, but then forget to transfer any of that clarity onto the paper (i.e. the hero is a carbon copy of Russell Crowe in their mind, but on the paper they just say "tall, good-looking white guy with dark hair").

And so all of this would seem to pertain strongly to the Testimony of Alrak piece, now that i know its origin. It isn't fan fiction, per se, yet it was written directly towards a small audience that already understood the characters and setting. The author could therefore be forgiven for not putting in fresh descriptions, since it would have been redundant to the intended readers. Likewise, any comparison to Weber's piece is somewhat unfair, since that piece obviously was starting from scratch.

[DarkHaven80]

<<<1. Does anybody else suffer back pain when writing too long? Or did you already have back problems before deciding to be a writer? How do you cope, remedy, or avoid back pain? Certain furniture, ergonomics, exercise, medication?>>>>

Back pain can be a horrendous deal. If it gets too bad it can hinder you in many ways. I would invest in a good chair, it's worth the money if it helps. If your posture is really bad, try one of those things that you put on to help posture (the name escapes me at the moment - sorry) Perhaps some loosening up exercises as well? I know stretching and cooling down before aerobics feels nice.

[dblteam]

Crusader said:

"i do recall Mr Macdonald suggesting (cue a bad paraphrase) that fan fiction is fine for fun but not necessarily good practice for writing. My experience (and later, similar incidents) all bear that out, for one reason: a fanfic author and audience have the benefit of knowing the characters and their setting beforehand. So there's no reason to flesh out Superman in my Metropolis fanfic, since most everyone knows what he looks like... yet that can lead me to bad habits of not practicing good description."

This is a valid observation about fan fiction, but I disagree that it isn't good practice for writing fiction. Fan fiction makes a fine arena in which to practice things like plot, story pacing, characterization, and the simple discipline of completing stories.

When it comes to describing characters and sometimes settings, weaving back story into the narrative, and the like, fan fiction authors do tend to skip all but the most basic details for the reasons you state.

However, it's still not a bad way for a new author to get their toes wet. After all, they already have a ready made world, populated with well-developed characters with existing conflicts.

Just my two cents (and yes, I have written fan fiction 8) ).

Valerie

[Crusader]

@dblteam:

i don't find that our posts disagree, really... it's more that we're looking at the same thing from different angles.

The angle i'm seeing, shows that fanfic is possibly a way to develop bad writing habits, as far as description, and thus is not necessarily good practice in writing overall. Note the lack of any absolutes in my tone; no attempt is made to imply or state that the positive angles are invalid or miniscule.

Your points all make sense; it would just be wise for a beginning writer, or any writer, to keep in mind that hitting the individual elements of writing (as per your examples of plot, story pacing, characterization, etc.) is definitely different practice than tackling all the elements at once.

i suppose my quibble is with method; two methods might teach the same basic skills, but the methods themselves may cause different results.

[ramble mode] Like, working on individual elements is an analytic method: take apart an element or two, focus on them, then move on to another. Whereas working on the whole shebang at once is an example of synthesis: grab the whole mess and run with it, improving every element at roughly the same time as you go.

One pitfall of analysis, is that it can lead to an excellent grasp of the parts but a weak understanding of how to put them together into a whole. Likewise, one pitfall of synthesis is that it can leave a person understanding how to get from A to B as a whole, but not truly being good in any one part.

And one clear difference between the pitfalls is that a lifetime of analysis without ever graduating to synthesis, seems likely to result in a writer who can't really write a whole book. They can write sparkling dialogue here, make brilliant plot twists there, but they never quite figure out how to put it all together.

By contrast, a lifetime of synthesis seems like it would yield a writer who can get a whole, complete story on a shelf, even if it is a bit rough. And as they progress, they are likely to eventually become proficient at the individual bits.

(So maybe this is why some people object so strongly to analysing other works for defects, or to caring about what defects other people see in their work. Perhaps some people are by nature inclined to focus on the story as a whole, instead of mastering each part individually and then gluing them all together later?)

As such, the bottom line might depend on the goal. If someone is just messing around with or learning about writing, the analytic method is a good tool. If someone is aiming to become a commercial writer, the method using synthesis might be best.

[ramble off] What do you think?

[maestrowork]

We're training ourselves to think like an editor here, with all this analysis. And that editing skill -- to be able to step back from your own work and analyze what works and not -- is invaluable to a writer.

[detante]

I couldn't agree more, Maestro.

[drgnlvrljh]

i note that this phenomenon isn't restricted to fanfic authors; some beginning authors in general make the same mistake. They see the scene in their head clearly, but then forget to transfer any of that clarity onto the paper

Crusader, I have a question. What should we, as begining writers, need to ask ourselves to create better clarity in cases like this? As I'm sure everyone is familiar with, when you're close to a work, it's often hard to notice that something is amiss. Which is why I depend so heavily on the readers who've so kindly critiqued my current WIP (and why I greatly appreciate the time from you guys).

But having someone tell me that I'm missing something in Chapter One, is -not- going to help me prevent this from happening again in Chapter Two, or in the next work. Obviously, some of the more battle-hardened veterans here are able to work through this on their own, now. But, like anything that becomes habit, you leave out a step or two that seems obvious to you, but is missing to me. :lol

So pretend I'm completely stupid, and explain it to me? What do you look for in your own work, to correct mistakes like this?

[Crusader]

@drgnlvrljh:
So pretend I'm completely stupid, and explain it to me? What do you look for in your own work, to correct mistakes like this?

[surprised] Well, i actually was under the idea that my comments did spell such a thing out. Oops on me. (i would never pretend you're stupid, though; better to assume i made a mistake.)

Anyway...

They see the scene in their head clearly, but then forget to transfer any of that clarity onto the paper (i.e. the hero is a carbon copy of Russell Crowe in their mind, but on the paper they just say "tall, good-looking white guy with dark hair").

The logical exercise to avoid this, even when you feel buried in the work (to whch i definitely relate, some of my worst mistakes come from that), is to compare the details of the description in your head, with what is on the paper.

So, with this hypothetical Russell Crowe, we would have to define what makes a "Russell Crowe". With a notepad, jot down details... what sort of hairstyle? How broad of a chin? Eyes close together or far apart? Big forehead or small? Swarthy skin or pale? That process gives you something tangible to compare the novel against. If the wording in the novel pales in comparison to your notes, your reader is probably going to be clueless to what you're seeing.

Now, taking this a step farther: in roleplaying games, there's a critical tool called the character sheet. You sit down with the sheet and write out in extreme detail all the vital stats and particulars of the character you want to play: height, weight, eye colour, the type of armor worn, the sword, his build, any scars, etc.

Well, the character sheet is (surprise!) identical to what i'm describing with the notepad, and applies not just to characters but to setting as well. In taking notes, the painter in you has free reign, to make the character/scene in your head become crisp and alive. And thus, when you are actually writing or editing the novel, you have all that info at your fingertips as a way to check yourself.

Like: "Let's see, my notes/character sheet says that my villian, Crow Russellson, is swarthy and tall with a sniewy-build thanks to years of military service; he's curly-haired with dark brown locks, has smoldering almond eyes, a hawklike nose and an impeccable goatee, dresses in fine silks of dark colours, and walks like a panther on the prowl."

So, you'd ask yourself: "Does that match with his first description on page 10 of my novel? Oh, i seem to have just written the tall and handsome man walked up to the bar. Oops; let me see what i can mix in here to spice that up..."

Is this more helpful? =)

[detante]

As I'm sure everyone is familiar with, when you're close to a work, it's often hard to notice that something is amiss.

Time away from the work helps. Enough time for you to forget exactly what you were thinking when you wrote it.

But having someone tell me that I'm missing something in Chapter One, is -not- going to help me prevent this from happening again in Chapter Two, or in the next work.

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean it is not helpful when someone makes an ambiguous statement about something missing from Chapter One? Or are you saying it's difficult to learn from critiques?

[Crusader]

@detante:

i read it as "even if somebody tells me i goofed in Ch. 1, my habits will likely lead me to make the same mistake again in Ch. 2." Which is a rather cynical comment upon one's own ability to learn from mistakes... =( But i digress.

Oh, and as an extension to the other post: one ideal is to develop a mindset where the author can hold the scene in their head while looking at the novel, comparing the two at a glance. However, reaching that ideal may be more natively difficult for some writers than others, since people don't all process information the same way. A very visual-minded person might have greater ease with keeping a mental "template", while a less visual person might need tangible notes. It doesn't matter, really, just whatever works for the author.

[maestrowork]

This is what I suggested to a fellow writer when she told me she had some trouble putting the visions in her head on paper:

Watch a scene of your favorite movie (try something simpler, however -- don't start with the battle scene of Lord of the Rings). Now, narrate the scene as you would in a novel. Get the details down, but not exhaustively: characters, costumes, gestures, action, speech/tones ov voice, settings, props, etc. After you're done, give it to someone and see if he or she can figure out what movie, what scene, and if you've done a good job.

Let's say, try a scene in A Beautiful Mind with Russell Crowe.

If you practice that long enough, sooner or later you would have a good handle on how to put the movie in your mind on paper effectively.

As a matter of fact, I'll go to Writing Prompts and Games and put up a challenge. I think it'd be fun.

[Fillanzea]

I like the ideas shown above, in terms of breaking bad habits about not including sufficient description.

I think if that's how you write (it's certainly how I write) sometimes you just have to be satisfied that you'll be able to revise it by coming at it cold, without the intense visualizations and assumptions you had while writing. But I'm kind of sick of rewrites, so for the current novel I just tried going slowly, and letting my mind focus intensely on the scene at hand. What's going on? What is the narrator noticing? How is she telling this story to someone who doesn't know anything about the world? For every scene I try to pause and think up a couple of interesting details to throw in.

I'm writing at about half the speed I wrote for my previous novels, and the critiques I've gotten say that it's a big improvement.

[dblteam]

"Crusader, I have a question. What should we, as begining writers, need to ask ourselves to create better clarity in cases like this? As I'm sure everyone is familiar with, when you're close to a work, it's often hard to notice that something is amiss. Which is why I depend so heavily on the readers who've so kindly critiqued my current WIP (and why I greatly appreciate the time from you guys)."

Well, I'm not Crusader, but another effective way to learn to spot these things is to join a critique group and start noticing them in other people's works. You find that, as you dissect someone else's prose--spotting the lack of description, the passive voice, the lapses in POV, etc--you'll also start spotting those things when they happen in your own work.

Valerie

[dblteam]

Crusader said:

"As such, the bottom line might depend on the goal. If someone is just messing around with or learning about writing, the analytic method is a good tool. If someone is aiming to become a commercial writer, the method using synthesis might be best.

[ramble off] What do you think?"

That's a really interesting idea. I had never consider the synthesis/analytic opposites you describe.

Honestly, though, I think it has a lot more to do with the kind of thinker you are rather than what the goal is.

I'm an extremely logical/analytical person. I have degrees in Aerospace Engineering. I used to design the control laws programed into the flight computers of various airplanes. So, to me it's intuitive to practice the pieces and then integrate them. I don't think I *could* have done the synthesis (synthetic?) method to improve my writing because my brain just doesn't work that way.

But, people whose brains work on the opposite end of the spectrum probably feel the same way about the analytical method :D

Valerie

[Crusader]

@dblteam:

Very cool. i like it when a theory thrown up for grab leads to a tangent that meanders into a discussion that reveals little facts that end up illuminating the theory.


So, to me it's intuitive to practice the pieces and then integrate them. I don't think I *could* have done the synthesis (synthetic?) method to improve my writing because my brain just doesn't work that way. But, people whose brains work on the opposite end of the spectrum probably feel the same way about the analytical method.

Indeed. Your comments make even more sense now, given this bit of background on your perspective.

And, i apologize for framing it all as an "either/or", since it isn't really so black-and-white. i know for a fact that my mind wobbles between being analytical vs being inclined to synthesis; likewise, there is likely a significant number of people who can do both in harmony.

Even so, you're also probably right about how people who are one or the other, might view each other. i was looking at them as methods used by the writer, you're seeing it as a quality of the writer's mind... so it's possible there are situations of conflict between mindset and method. For example: a school of writing might have a bias towards analytic methods, which might drive bonkers any students who are [edit] synthetically-minded.

* * *

Sidebar: Synthesis/synthetic versus analysis/analytic, is bothering me too. Let's see...

1 : relating to or involving synthesis : not analytic
4 a : of, relating to, or produced by chemical or biochemical synthesis; especially : produced artificially
b : devised, arranged, or fabricated for special situations to imitate or replace usual realities

Ah. For some reason it stuck in my peabrain that synthetic method would mean the method itself is artificial, as opposed to the method implies a process of synthesis. Yet in plain sight, the latter is the first possible definition. [grins] So synthetic method vs. analytic method works. (Thanks for prompting me to look that up.)

[HConn]

Are there universal standards? Or simply if a million people love it, it doesn't matter if the other million hate it?

I think of this question another way: Imagine you are a new author standing in a bookstore, and you are suddenly given a celestial gift to look out and see everyone in the world at once. You can see that the world consists of many different audiences--some read for escapism, some to confirm their political beliefs, some to impress their friends, some to find inspiration, some to live inside other characters, some to....

You get the idea. There are many audiences out there.

And most individuals are actually members of more than one audience.

"Success" is just a matter of appealing to and finding your intended audience. Jonathan Franzen can turn Oprah down because, in his mind, her audience doesn't overlap with his. Being a success to her audience, and the scorn he might suffer from his intended audience because of it, would be a failure.

That's how I see it, anyway.

FYI: My intended audience is People With Lots Of Disposable Cash.

How do you cope, remedy, or avoid back pain? Certain furniture, ergonomics, exercise, medication?

I must have missed this the first time through--Exercise your ab muscles. Seriously. I'm a lazy SOB, but I do just enough crunches to keep my back from laying me out.

What do you look for in your own work, to correct mistakes like this?

Detente gives the answer I would have--put the manuscript away. Give it two months, if you want to be extra careful, then take it out and read it.

[James D Macdonald]

I note that this phenomenon isn't restricted to fanfic authors; some beginning authors in general make the same mistake. They see the scene in their head clearly, but then forget to transfer any of that clarity onto the paper.

That's what we call a "head story." Your beta readers will become invaluable here (as will putting the manuscript into your desk drawer for a month or three before re-reading it).

Analysing openings may teach you how to write good openings. Analysing endings will teach you how to write good books.

[debraji]

I wrote draft 1 rather quickly. The resulting manuscript was, well, drafty, with great gaping holes at 65,000 words.

Draft 2 took months... and came in at 92,000 words.

I started in on draft 3 last night. After an hour of fiddling with the language in chapters 1 through 5, I realized I was going about it all wrong. I need to consider the structure of the story, the pacing, the narrative whole, before I start polishing little bits and pieces.

So today I took a list of the chapter titles and wrote a brief synopsis next to each one. It helped me see that some chapters probably could be combined--and others split in two. One subplot isn't worked out fully--that will need more attention.

There's character that is never heard from again after his appearance in an early scene. He's a loose end that bothers me--either he should show up later on, or someone should explain his absence, or he should be written out of the book altogether.

My guess is that next I need to read through the whole thing, making notes, looking for gaps, making sure that things promised early on come to fruition before the end, and that the way is properly prepared for things that happen later.

But I'm making this up as I go along. (This is my first novel.) Can you suggest any additional techniques for structural revisions?

[Crusader]

But I'm making this up as I go along. (This is my first novel.)

Sounds good to me so far, really. (i'm mystified at how you were able to do three distinct drafts, since i am incapable of doing that, but i digress...)

The use of chapter synopsis was a good move, for example. i found for myself that the novel has to be juggled almost like working on a picture in MSPaint or Photoshop or other graphics program; zoom in to do the detail, zoom out to check the whole thing, zoom in again, etc. And synopsis is like zooming out, so that's what i did eventually.

To me, you really sound like you know what you're doing, so perhaps you are looking for reassurance as much as pointers? i'm trying to think of something useful, but aside from "find a trusted friend to beta read, if you haven't"...

Hm. i can relate to your "loose end" character, though. i have one in my novel, and i ended up excising him after i felt that exploring him just wouldn't suit the story.

Perhaps for you, you could sit down and just run with your guy for awhile, on a separate file or piece of paper or whathaveyou. See what comes of it. Maybe he'll be come more interesting, or maybe he'll bore you. He may point out something that you can use to make another character better... or even become worthy of his own book.


After an hour of fiddling with the language in chapters 1 through 5, I realized I was going about it all wrong. I need to consider the structure of the story, the pacing, the narrative whole, before I start polishing little bits and pieces.

Hm. Rereading this, i dunno. My methods involve doing exactly what you feel shouldn't be done. For me, the process of polishing the prose sometimes led to new ideas. Or revealed that certain bits just weren't working. Or allowed me to catch errors that i missed on earlier full-bore readthroughs.

Does your story have definite "arcs" of plot and/or setting? My novel started out as one big chunk, then became two distinct halves, then segmented into six arcs. The flow continues across all the segments, but there are definite jumps of setting, specific events, and theme that distinguish the arcs.

If you can identify that kind of thing in your structure, it might help, since i found that working with an arc across a sixth of a novel (15,000 pages?) can lead to it being tighter and leaner than working with an arc that is a whole half (40,000?).

In any event, there are quite a few knowledgeable people here, so i imagine something useful will turn up for you.

[debraji]

Yes, Crusader, you rightly detected a wish for reassurance. I'm lighting out for the territories, and I'm anxious about getting lost. (Although I suspect that getting lost is part of the process....)

Thanks for reminding me about story arcs. My novel has seven sections, so I need to ensure that each scene, chapter, and section have their own arcs, as must the book as a whole. I'm finding that having descriptive chapter and section titles is much more helpful than using simple numbers--the titles help me focus on the heart of each segment.

Still, I wouldn't mind more advice about the process. Anyone else?

[James D Macdonald]

My guess is that next I need to read through the whole thing, making notes, looking for gaps, making sure that things promised early on come to fruition before the end, and that the way is properly prepared for things that happen later.

That's what I call doing agricultural work. You go through and make sure that everything that happens at the end was planted in the beginning, and that everything that happened in the beginning sprouted.

The things that didn't sprout you prune back. The things that did sprout, you make sure have plenty of fertilizer spread on 'em and are watered frequently.

A technique that works for some people when they're making sure the whole novel is there on the page, not just in your head, is to write it as a flow chart. That will also show you branches that don't come to a conclusion.

It's perfectly okay to leave some loose ends. Nothing is ever fully tied up. (That's what makes sequels possible.)

You will, at some point, have to get the whole novel into your head at one time. That means just reading it straight through, fast. Where that comes in the revision process is probably going to be when you're pretty happy with the parts. May I suggest at that time that you print it out in some format that you've not been using -- single space double column justified Times New Roman, for example -- so that the memory of what was there before doesn't get in front of the text you're seeing now.

I do small text-twiddles as I notice things, every time I look at the manuscript. The final polish comes after the whole plot is put together.

(The technique of writing one-parapgraph summaries of each chapter is a good one. Lots of people use it.)

Onward. When you find yourself adding a comma in the morning and taking it out in the afternoon -- that's when it's time to send off this manuscript and start the next one.

[James D Macdonald]

<a href="http://www.realrates.com/cgi-bin/authorrptd.cgi" target="_new">First novel advances; writers' careers</a>

<a href="http://www.sfwa.org/writing/faq2.htm" target="_new">FAQ for Beginning Writers</a>

<a href="http://www.mysterywriters.org/pages/resources/library/economics.htm" target="_new">The Economics of Publishing</a>

[Crusader]

You go through and make sure that everything that happens at the end was planted in the beginning...

Very vivid analogy. Of course, now i'm seeing 'weeds' everywhere in my work...


A technique that works for some people when they're making sure the whole novel is there on the page, not just in your head, is to write it as a flow chart.

Never thought of this. It reminds me of being drilled in Creative Writing to use those brainstorming charts where a person draws a circle, labels it a concept, then draws other circles nearby, and ... and... um... (help?)

Anyway, er, that method of charting the flow of ideas didn't appeal to me at first. But i found myself dragging it out of the shed many years later. So i wonder if i could likewise make use of flowcharts...


It's perfectly okay to leave some loose ends. Nothing is ever fully tied up. (That's what makes sequels possible.)

Life does have times where it doesn't tie up neatly. A writer might benefit from identifying if the loose end (LE) is a danging thread on a cuff or a long run in the pantyhose. Like, if your beta readers suggest that the LE is interesting enough to be noticeable, then letting it dangle could be annoying.

[trying not to ramble, but failing] It also seems to involve the contrast between whatever is happening in the story around the LE, vs. the LE itself. So... if you have a relatively slow part, and the LE is interesting, it might annoy a reader far more than if you have the same LE in a blizzard of action.


You will, at some point, have to get the whole novel into your head at one time. That means just reading it straight through, fast.

Which i would connect back to the frequent advice about putting the novel in a drawer for awhile. Indeed, i've found that it's easier for me to read my novel fast if it feels fresh. By contrast, having a burned-out brain from many consecutive nights and days of editing made me skim instead of read, so i missed things constantly.


Onward. When you find yourself adding a comma in the morning and taking it out in the afternoon -- that's when it's time to send off this manuscript and start the next one.

People with very analytic, or obsessive, tendencies may wish to pay close attention to this advice. In my case, it isn't so much that i get stuck on moving the comma around; what i get stuck on is re-evaluating the words around the comma, which can lead me to tweak them, which can lead me to reimagine what the character is doing or what the plot looks like, which can lead me to get a better idea of what should be going on, which can lead me to pull everything apart...

So i definitely echo the above advice, insofar as a writer would be wise to weigh the worth of "being near the end of the race, but suddenly deciding to run another lap", which is what the whole comma-moving thing can turn into.

[drgnlvrljh]

i read it as "even if somebody tells me i goofed in Ch. 1, my habits will likely lead me to make the same mistake again in Ch. 2." Which is a rather cynical comment upon one's own ability to learn from mistakes... =( But i digress.

@ Crusader,

My apologies for not responding sooner, I'm just now getting over my annual bout with the creeping crud. :lol

And you read it correctly. Sort of. I guess a good example would be something brought up to me in a crit of my first chapter I posted in SYW by Preyer about the crows in the middle of the city during the winter time. I wrongly assumed this was a common occurance in most mid-to-large cities during the winter time (apparently it's regional). So when my character encountered a rather large one, I didn't consider that anyone would be curious about why that crow was there, and I didn't want to treat my reader as stupid by throwing in an info-dump. It's easily rectified with a short passage of descriptive, fortunately. But the problem could remain. How do I avoid this mistake in the future?

The simple answer that I got from all this (and the valuable lesson I learned from Preyer), is don't assume anything! :lol

I'll be looking closer at what I write, beyond the usual things.

I want to apologize for the tone of my previous post. I was not intending to make anyone think they were talking over my head. It's more along the lines of...sometimes, it takes a different explaination before it sinks in. Examples seem to work best for the way I learn. Did that make sense? :\

[Crusader]

@drgnlvrljh:

Apologies? To me? Embarassing and unnecessary, but i appreciate the thought. =) Of course, what's more important is that now apparently you're feeling better?

Moving along... i took a look back at your original post. i'm amused, because i read you wrong, or you read me wrong, or we read each other wrong at the same time.

Regardless, here's the summary: you asked about clarity. i took that to mean "the novel and the headscene aren't matching." And i recall that in SYW you and i had talked about a piece from your work-in-progress (or i hope so; if not, now i KNOW i'm going senile.) So i rattled off ideas in that context.

Now, though, it's evident that you meant clarity in a different way. With the crow example, the novel and your headscene were in fact clearly similar. So the lack of clear connection was in fact between both of those, vs. the real world that you were trying to imitate/incorporate.

Thus, all my earlier answers should go in the circular file as far as the context of "making the novel and headscene agree"...

... but then i'd take the ideas out, dust them off, and offer them humbly to you again, as far as the new context of "making the headscene and novel agree with the real world."

As you've discovered, assumptions are often problematic. And they can hide in the worst place of all--right out in the open--'cos it's our blindness that is hiding it.

(Incidentally, that's the science behind the most perfect cloaking device in all of sci-fi--the Somebody Else's Problem field. If you can make me assume that the object you want to hide is Somebody Else's Problem, then the object will vanish from my eyes. [credits to the eminent researcher Douglas Adams for defining the field's equations.])

So, writers can combat assumptions by 1.) doing research and taking notes, plus 2.) having experts and objective observers on hand to read the novel and catch the bogus assumptions.

And, with regard to "needing examples to learn best"--me too. So i entirely relate to where you're coming from. =) (Let me jump to an odd conclusion: you're one of those folks who can put something together without reading the instructions?)

[debraji]

Jim, thanks for the helpful suggestions.

I did use flow charts early on. In fact, you drew the first one for me at VP6 in 2002. I'd brought a short story that the instructors felt worked better as the beginning of a novel. (Patrick, Jim K., and Debra all agreed on this point. Debra helped me with omniscient POV. Teresa helped me figure out how burning feathers smelled by setting some hair from Debra's hairbrush alight.)

When the novel took off in surprising directions, I left the flowcharts behind. But perhaps this would be a good way to check out the bones of the book and see if they add up to a proper skeleton.

And I'll certainly try the double column/different font technique.

I'm sure I won't be able to resist doing little fiddly changes along the way. I just don't want to get bogged down in them and neglect to look at the story as a whole.

Thanks again.

[drgnlvrljh]

@ Crusader,

Indeed! Ex: "The biggest, blackest crow she'd ever seen." was working from the assumption that the -idea- of the crow was not all that unusual, but the the size of it was. Of course, that line, regardless, leaves much to be desired, true. Gotta love "first" drafts! :lol

The headscene wasn't so much a laundry list of what made the crow so huge (ie; wingspan, comparison to the roadkill it was protecting, etc), but her thoughts and feelings when she saw it. Sidebar: When I lived in Michigan (briefly), I had driven down a well maintained dirt road that was wide enough for two cars to pass comfortably, and was lined by very tall trees. I saw a crow swoop down, and fly ahead of my car for a bit, and was awed by the sheer size of the creature! I swear the wingspan was nearly as wide as the road itself! The feeling of awe that a mere -crow- would get that big struck me dumb. I had no words for it. And I think that might be where my "fear" of making the same mistake over again might arise from. (Now that I've rambled on, and talked in circles, I finally hit upon the point).

A thesaurus, of course, is invaluable. The "Biggest, blackest crow she'd ever seen." is a clearly blatant example of not getting the headscene to mesh with the real scene, but even experienced writers, I would think, would still have the problem, when mere words fail us. The head/real scene mis-match is not going to be quite so obvious for someone with more experience. How do you rectify this? Or avoid it altogether? Of course, the first, best answer, is set the story aside, then look at it later with a cleaner eye. But are there other ways, other techniques that might work, as well?


PS--

(Let me jump to an odd conclusion: you're one of those folks who can put something together without reading the instructions?)

Actually, yes! :lol Although, I don't guarantee my results! And I do keep the instructions as a reference if things get a little complicated (I put together a futon once, and was about 1/2 way through, cussin' and fussin', before I realized I was using the allen wrench wrong) :o

[James D Macdonald]

Sometimes it doesn't matter whether the scene in the writer's head matches the scene in the reader's head.

If the writer is imagining Russell Crowe and the reader is imagining Johnny Depp -- it doesn't matter so long as the plot isn't affected.

That elevator at the beginning of The Street Lawyer ... were the doors brass? Brushed chrome? Natural walnut? It doesn't matter. Each reader made a picture that made sense to them.

The biggest, blackest crow a character has ever seen will be interpreted by the readers in terms of the biggest, blackest crows they personally have ever seen. What of it? They'll supply the crow they need, in terms they understand.

(For that matter, I'd seriously consider whether the bigness of the crow or the blackness of the crow was the most important part of the description, and cut the other adjective.)

Only add detail if it enhances the story.

Remember the mantra:

The words belong that

Advance the plot,
Support the theme, or
Reveal character.

[drgnlvrljh]

The biggest, blackest crow a character has ever seen will be interpreted by the readers in terms of the biggest, blackest crows they personally have ever seen. What of it? They'll supply the crow they need, in terms they understand.

I agree, in that the description of the crow itself was immaterial. Where I got lost, was trying to convey the sense of awe she felt when she first saw it. That seems to be a place where I tend to lose my words, so to speak. ;)


(For that matter, I'd seriously consider whether the bigness of the crow or the blackness of the crow was the most important part of the description, and cut the other adjective.)

*coughcough* Oops? :o

But yes, I wholly agree.

[Crusader]

@drgnlvrljh:

It was said, "sometimes it doesn't matter whether the scene in the writer's head matches the scene in the reader's head."

Which is a very good point. i just want to clarify if the point matches what you were looking for, since you said "sometimes the scene in the writer's head doesn't match the scene in reality".

So, let's just pull apart some ways that a scene can fail.

1-Writer doesn't write the scene in their head clearly into the novel. Reader is left with something too vague.

2-Writer doesn't write the scene clearly, and the scene also flubs a key detail of reality. Reader is left with something vague and confusing.

3-Writer writes the scene very clearly, but the scene flubs a key detail of reality. Reader is left with something vivid, but confusing.

4-Writer writes the scene very clearly, gets all the key details right, but it's a weak scene. Reader is left with something vivid, accurate, but flat.

It looks like your questions are asking about how to avoid #2, though on some level i'd guess you're worried about the others as well. But anyway, as far as #2, i don't know that it's necessary to worry about avoiding it moreso than worrying about catching it.

i mean, a novel is a huge thing to keep straight in a brain as defective as mine. And life can get in the way. So even with piles of good notes taken before i even start writing, it's possible to mangle something without realizing it. Like if i took detailed notes on street locations, then stayed up till 2am writing, and was so sleepy that i accidentally mixed up two key street names.

Well, the mistake is done. What matters is that i, or a beta reader, spot it. That's where the notes help, since the mixed-up streets in the novel and the correct streets in the notes clearly wouldn't match.

i mean, even when carpenters "measure twice and cut once" to avoid mistakes, i imagine an earthquake sometimes messes up the cut anyway. =)

* * *

Anyway, it was also said, "The biggest, blackest crow a character has ever seen will be interpreted by the readers in terms of the biggest, blackest crows they personally have ever seen. What of it? They'll supply the crow they need, in terms they understand."

i can't make up my mind about this point. i've heard it repeated here and elsewhere, and it seems to make perfect sense, yet it also seems counterintuitive. [rambles on for two hours]


Actually, yes! :lol Although, I don't guarantee my results!

When you said you prefer examples, it suggested a visual or tactile method of learning and problem-solving. i relate.
(And it's smart of you to not give out guarantees. [very amused] Less litigation that way, i bet.)

[Nateskate]

Accidental inspiration occurs in a world with rough edges. It's those things we didn't really calculate, or quite mean to say, or a blurt, that sometimes says more than it is meant to say.

Illustration. Paul McCartney wrote "Hey Jude", and wrote a line that he couldn't reconcile. He wasn't quite sure what it meant, and said to John, "Don't worry, I'll remove that and change it later"

And John said to the effect, "No, no, leave it. That's brilliant."

"The movement you need is on your shoulder"

Well, Paul wasn't quite certain what it meant, and perhaps no one is. It just seems to fit and you have a "I sort of know what that means" feeling without ever really having to define it.

I think a Big Black Crow, is a rough edge statement, in that it isn't about factual matters, but something that makes you pause and think. "What head space was the protagonist in?" Were his perceptions hyper aware, even distorted. Was he in a place of darkness that was overwhelming?

I think in our desire to be perfect, sometimes we become sterile instead, which is unfortunate. It's the impurities in the water that give it the flavor.