Re: NaNo
- From: Lucy Kemnitzer <ritaxis@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 12:17:57 -0800
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 22:38:22 -0800, Lucy Kemnitzer
<ritaxis@xxxxxxxxxx> seems to have said:
>On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 11:35:03 +0000 (UTC), "Nicola Browne"
><nicky.matthews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> seems to have said:
>
>>"Lucy Kemnitzer" <ritaxis@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:3f1mm19rceong53mk3ibfe29qhvvo9orqj@xxxxxxx
>>
>>> >
>>> Well, I did just under 2K on a story which needs another 2Kto finish.
>>> Now I have to go to bed.
>>
>>
>>That's a lot!
>>My longest is 1700 words.
>
>I've got the rest mapped out, but today was a work day and I
>transcribed a bunch but otherwise I worked. I have some more stuff to
>do before bed: I might finish the story tonight, and also post this
>other thing I promised myself I would do.
>
>This is a really strange way to work but I think it might work for
>now, for some values of working (writing a lot).
I finished Thursday's story: it's almost 5K long, and polishing will
probably make it less than 4.5K.
When I first thought of it, I thought it was a novel, though, so
there's a reason for it to be long.
Is it okay if the one I do on Monday is one I started at the beginning
of the summer?
It seems like darkish fantasy takes to the short form better than
cheerful things. Do other people think so too?
Lucy Kemnitzer, still
chapter 15 is up:
http://www.baymoon.com/~ritaxis/donor/donorweb/donorindex
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Dorothy? We're definitely in Kansas, dear.
- Next by Date: Re: Narrative Summary and Transitions
- Previous by thread: Re: NaNo
- Next by thread: Re: NaNo
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
