Learn Writing with Uncle Jim, Volume 1

[Chris Grey]

Not even Plot Genie writes the story for you. To answer the question, though... what came first, the story or the plot analysis? Either every writer since the beginning of time knew what outline worked best and applied their story to it, or all the successful stories since the beginning of time had certain elements in common and this analysis picked some of them out.

The idea has been around at least since Poulti. Does that mean each writer is using a formula to make his stories? Or does it mean they've just found a way that works and, by coincidence, the formula agrees?

I'd say both. This is dangerous for things sounding too artificial, but valuable as a guideline when things get mired.

[Calliopenjo]

Hi Uncle Jim,

I think just because it's Friday, my brain's reading TILT TILT TILT TILT. Either that or the green ooze you see in the corner of the room is my brain declaring a break. Anywho, I need a word that sounds like gathered. Here's the sentence. Diane stepped down from the podium, and Leigh gathered her together and left the cemetary. Gathered her together sounds terrible. If you have any ideas for another word or phrase I'm open to them. (On hands and knees begging.)

[LOG]

Originally Posted by Calliopenjo

'Diane stepped down from the podium, and Leigh collected herself and left the cemetery.'

Cemetery is spelt with an 'e' near the end.
I wasn't sure of your tense,

Originally Posted by Calliopenjo

'Diane had stepped down from the podium, so Leigh collected herself and left the cemetery.'

May also fit, sounds better to me, but I edited it so I'm biased.

[smsarber]

Calli, maybe you could give us the whole paragraph? Because the way it reads to me, it sounds like Leigh collected the dismembered body parts of "her." Sorry, it's just how "collected" make such a short example sound to me. I'm a sicko, I know!

[FennelGiraffe]

Originally Posted by Calliopenjo

Diane stepped down from the podium, and Leigh gathered her together and left the cemetary.

I can't tell what you're trying to say. Who is "her": Diane or Leigh? Either way, "gather... together" implies there are several people or things involved. As a separate issue, the two "ands" are a bit awkward.

Diane stepped down from the podium, and Leigh escorted her out of the cemetery.

Diane stepped down from the podium, so Leigh pulled herself together and left the cemetery.

After Diane stepped down from the podium, Leigh collected her belongings and left the cemetery.

[Calliopenjo]

The "her" refers to Diane. Gathered together to me creates a mental image of someone using a dustpan and brush to collect everything.

The events preceding that sentence are that Diane finished giving her eulogy. Leigh sat in the audience waiting for Diane to finish. So as Diane stepped down from the podium. . .

The story is still in its rough stages. I got stuck and couldn't think.

[James D. Macdonald]

A word that sounds like gathered? Lathered? Blathered?


Diane stepped down from the podium, and Leigh gathered her together and left the cemetary.


As Leigh watched, Diane step from the podium. The younger woman gathered her emotions like a housewife sweeping up the shards of an antique vase, pulled her hat low across her forehead, and left the cemetery.

[Neversage]

How do you avoid redundancy in referring to a nameless character?

My dilemma is a short skirmish between my protagonist and a highwayman. To get through my draft, I just kept referring to him as "the highwayman," but this is awful to read over and over. There is no reason for my protagonist to know this man's name, and things like "the taller man," run dry quickly. Any ideas?

[Calliopenjo]

Originally Posted by Neversage

How do you avoid redundancy in referring to a nameless character?

My dilemma is a short skirmish between my protagonist and a highwayman. To get through my draft, I just kept referring to him as "the highwayman," but this is awful to read over and over. There is no reason for my protagonist to know this man's name, and things like "the taller man," run dry quickly. Any ideas?

How about if your protagonist gives the "highwayman" a nickname that only they know. Ex: I'll call him John after the character in Highway to Heaven. He might not be an angel but he is just as mysterious.

[smsarber]

What is a "highwayman?"

[Chris Grey]

A highwayman is a knight of the road, or knight of the moon, depending on who you'd ask. It's an armed man who robs travelers on the road. Rarely alone. A bit common in England around the 16th century.

As to how to handle it, I'd say the same way you'd handle a named character. Pronouns where it won't be confusing, and carefully resorting to a distant cousin (once removed) of the saidism: his foe, his adversary, the bandit, the stranger, etc.

The highwayman swung wide, but John read his attack and ducked clean of the blade. He pushed off with his legs, lunging hard at his adversary's exposed stomach. John saw a glint of steel emerge from the bandit's cloak and only barely dodged his foe's pistol.

Additional identifiers can be derived from physical or other identifying characteristics (the tall man, the Frenchman, the dwarf, the gaily-clad rogue).

Stinks of saidisms, but whatcha gonna do?

[Neversage]

Thanks, Chris. I'll try it that way. It's a short sequence, but part of the opening, so it naturally needs to be fluid enough to keep the reader in the action.

[smsarber]

A-ha! I have heard the term, and just couldn't place it. Thanks for the info!

[James D. Macdonald]

The Highwayman by Alfred Noyes

Beware the Burly Detective Syndrome.

"Burly Detective" Syndrome

Fear of proper names. Found in most of the same pulp magazines that abound with "said" bookisms and Tom Swifties. This is where you can't call Mike Shayne "Shayne" but substitute "the burly detective" or "the red-headed sleuth." Like the "said" bookish it comes from the entirely wrong-headed conviction that you can't use the same word twice in the same sentence, paragraph, or even page. This is only true of particularly strong and highly visible words, like, say, "vertiginous." It's always better to re-use an ordinary, simple noun or verb rather than contrive a cumbersome method of avoiding it.

[Neversage]

Uncle Jim appears... and complicates my plans with his wisdom.

It's nice to know that going overboard with this has a term. The Burly Detective Syndrome seems to be part of what gave the Eye of Argon it's magical ability to make even the stoutest reader want to laugh through their vomit.

[Perle_Rare]

Originally Posted by James D. Macdonald

The Highwayman by Alfred Noyes

Ah! Thanks Uncle Jim! That's the poem that Anne Shirley recites in the made-for-TV movie "Anne of Green Gables" based on the novel by Lucy Maud Montgomery. I had always wondered.

[Calliopenjo]

Uncle Jim,

I have a question. Is it possible to change perspectives in the same story? You see, the perspective I have been using, Arrosa, would no longer be valid because her fledgling, Briallen, was taken back to the mortal world by Linus who is Briallen's father. What I was thinking was for the next chapter write from Briallen's perspective about the events that happened while she was with her father. At the same time though, I don't want to confuse the reader. Can it be done?

[James D. Macdonald]

Sure it can be done.

The question is, can you do it?

There's only one way to find out.

[euclid]

Originally Posted by James D. Macdonald

Beware the Burly Detective Syndrome.

I took a copy of this document to stick on my wall. It's brilliant! It seems to apply to all writing, not just SF (although some of the concepts are SF related).

Are there other do's and dont's for other genres?

[euclid]

I'm in a bit of a quandary, here.

I am told by the experts (UK editors) that publishers in UK look for at least 100,000 words in an adult novel. But I believe US publishers look for less (up to 90,000?).

My book is 106,500 words long.
I have been pitching the book at both UK and US agents.

Should I shorten it? It would be a major Heraclean task, but I suppose it could be done.
If I did shorten it, should I then continue to pitch the longer version in UK while pitching the shorter version in US?

[James D. Macdonald]

100K (if they're the right 100K) is fine with US publishers.

[allenparker]

Originally Posted by euclid

I'm in a bit of a quandary, here.



Should I shorten it? It would be a major Heraclean task, but I suppose it could be done.

This may be just me, but I find that if I can shorten the story and still tell the story, I have to shorten it to make it better. When there is a possibility of making the story tighter, more compact and keep the flow, color, and voice of the story in tact, I make the story a better read.

The trouble, I think, is knowing when you are not disturbing the world you are creating by lowering the word count.

[euclid]

Thanks Jim.

Is 106,500 ok in USA, or should I try to trim 6,500 words?

[Perle_Rare]

My inexpert guess would be that if trimming 6,500 words makes the story better, then trim.


If this is the incorrect answer, then it's proof that I never understood anything and that I would benefit from reading Uncle Jim's thread from the first post again...

[James D. Macdonald]

I don't think there's a publisher on the planet who is going to say, "This book is wonderful! Fantastic! Astounding! I couldn't put it down! But it's 6,500 words too long. Reject!" That's a tiny percent difference and your book will probably swing more than that one way or the other during editing anyway.

(Unless the guidelines say "Don't even think about submitting anything over 100,000 words, suckah!")