Re: Wherea are the newbies

Tina Hall <Tina_Hall@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

But sometimes they *are* doing something the wrong way! So it would
help if someone told them, rather than leaving them to figure it out
for themselves.

Like what?

Patricia Wrede was very good at suggesting what people with specific
problems *might* be doing wrong in a way which didn't offend them (while
also pointing out, or saying, that it might be right for someone else).

I don't have that skill, nor the advantage that she was already
recognised as (a) a successful writer, (b) experienced at giving good
advice. Both things reduced the normal human tendency that most people
have of getting uptight if someone hints that what they are doing, and
how they are doing it, is not already perfect. (This often happens even
when people *want* advice. Even I had to learn to take crits in a real
life crit group without sulking! <g>)

So I can only point at some of PW's earlier posts. I tended to save her
more general advice (e.g. about POV) rather than her specific answers to
other people, so I don't have an example to hand.

but then this isn't a kid that gets a slap from the unqualified
parent for the self-made birthday present being a bit crooked; no
one here is obliged to praise them, and

No, not obliged. But how do we get them to stay?

Do you want people like that to stay?

Probably not all - but some of them might be interesting to hear what
they think. They might have new ideas about writing that we (or I)
haven't seen before.

Then perhaps not intimidating them with the attituded of 'we here know
it all' might help. (Even if not intended, it might look that way. Just

We had a discussion about that a year or so ago (I can't remember if you
were here then).

At present, someone (usually Zeborah) tends to post a polite response
along with the FAQ. In my view, this is an acceptable compromise between
welcoming boorish idiots, and frightening away well-intentioned idiots,
who can learn better. :-) (Oh, and any idio^H^H^H newcomers lurking
here, I don't mean you! Just the fact that you have enough sense to lurk
a bit first means you are not an eejut.)

like in some other newsgroups new people don't get to add anything new,
because everything that could be discussed has been said about Nethack,
or Wheel of Time, for example, so they get refered to a FAQ. It might
well look similar when someone new comes in here, even while the subject
is open/potentially infinite, rather than closed/finite like a game or
story.)

It's a problem. I don't know a solution. (I've experienced it myself in
at least two other established newsgroups. I went away again from both
of them.)

Maybe discussion groups have a natural life-cycle, and eventually die
out for a combination of reasons which cannot be evaded, including
invasion by unsympathetic newcomers, cliqueyness of oldsters and simply
running out of things that can interest both old and new members.

And then there's the possibility that an innovative idea would get
tagged as crap by the old dogs; "No one would want to read that. To get
published you have to write <old> ideas." Which discourages new ideas.
(Which of those would really be crap is left to decide for the reader.)

That's not a fear I share. I haven't seen that attitude in rasfc: not to
ideas.

It might even be better writing, or more interesting to other people
(since, if I got stuck, I'd quickly think of a way to un-stick it that
I think would interest the "readers").

Which reminds me. Didn't you agree to let me read something you're
writing? (IIRC it came up concerning consistency of Elven names, but
according to Michelle, I'm an ok proof-reader for finding added/missing
words, so that could be something useful to you, too.)

Would it help if I complained about you not giving me anything to read,
to get you to continue writing? :)

It might - but I have a number of issues in my personal life at present,
including what I hope is a minor health problem (I've made an
appointment to see my doctor for the first time in 11 years) so it
probably wouldn't make a lot of difference to my writing.

But thanks for the encouragement.

[snip example about my idea of "structure"]

It's not *just* the order in which you tell things, but also what you
tell, and links between them. But, for me, the ordering is perhaps
the most important aspect of the structure.

Hm. Again I'm thinking of my way to write; one thing after the other.
Things can't come before their time, because nothing that follows exists
yet, it's all based on what's before. (Except things coming out of the
blue, which bug me, so I add something earlier that has them not come
out of the blue. Unless something that bugged me before as not matching
the rest suddenly turns out a clue to what then didn't come out of the
blue at all.)

If, after writing it, you changed the order of some scenes, would it
stop making sense?

If so, then you don't have a lot of choice. I think you said you don't
revise (much) or do second drafts anyway.

But how far ahead (if at all) do you think *before* you write? If you
don't plan ahead, then I don't think you have much choice about the
structure: what structure there is, will be whatever comes out as you
write.

For some concret examples:

[snip examples]

Personally, I like the third version much better, and of the first, only
the added scenes were easy. (I'm no good at adjusting things later.)

I think your examples are more an issue of consistency than structure.
It doesn't sound (to me) like you have a problem with the structure of
your stories.

Just like some people (Nicky, I think) don't think about "theme" but
discover they had one after they finished writing, I think you don't
need to think about structure. That's just my opinion, of course.

It's my choice that they should get the jokes on first reading, so I
have to structure some scenes in a particular order.

That's deliberate, though, right?

Yes, it's deliberate. It's why I decided I have to write in omni pov
too. So I can write what different people are thinking during a scene.

I did spend a lot of time thinking about it, and that's an example of
some "wrong" advice, because the advice (not aimed directly at me) was
that "it's hard for a beginning writer to do omni". This may be true of
many writers, but it wasn't good advice for this novel or this writer
(me).

I'm more thinking about spotting it afterwards (planned writing wouldn't
work at all for me).

So you can change what you have written? Or so you can write better the
next time?

Now I'm confused.

I just mean that when people say "there is no structure" I think that
*they* are confused. There is always a structure. It's like if you
saw a heap of Lego bricks: some people might say it has no structure,
it is just a heap. I would say it does have a structure: it's
structure is a heap. But it is a much simpler structure than, say,
making a castle out of the Lego bricks. So when people say "no
structure" they usually mean "not very much structure" or "a very
simple structure".

Or 'no ordered structure'?

Yes.

Telling things out of order so they don't make sense to the reader is
like a heap of Lego bricks: it has so little structure that people
say "no structure".

Which has me wonder what such a story would be like.

It would be so bad that nobody would read it! :-) But, I seem to
remember hearing something like that read out at the writing group I go
to in Real Life. Fortunately, I can't remember who, except that he/she
is no longer a member.

Um. I'm not sure if I've answered any of your question, because I
don't know what you were confused about. But maybe what I've said
this time is a little clearer.

Still lacking images, so far. (Like what bit of story would match any
Lego piece. I know what the Lego looks like, not what the story pieces
look like.)

Then it wasn't a good metaphor, for you. <shrug> I think we already know
that at least half my attempts at explaining things in a way that suits
you don't work. So ignore Lego bricks, and let us move on.

It's not the structure that is interesting. It is whether the
structure makes the story interesting that matters.

Now I'm confused. Where's the difference?

Sorry - that's just me. I'm interested in lots of very abstract things,
and for me a "structure" can be interesting in itself, for its shape.

I'll risk another metaphor. No I won't, I just deleted it as being even
more confusing! Just accept that, for me, different stories might have
the same structure. But although a bad structure can spoil a good story,
a good structure can't make a boring story interesting. So having a good
structure doesn't guarantee that you have an interesting story. (IMHO.)

In my example above, is it more interesting to read if you know that
Pearl is really Penelope in disguise, or less interesting? If it is
less interesting, then I've probably made a wrong choice in the way
I've structured that story.

Well, I, personally, would think it more interesting to know that she's
Penelope in disguise.

Or perhaps I'd be just as entertained if I only learned later. I think
both could work well, with me, personally.

Then it was a good example, because the *events* that happen in the
story are the same in both cases. But the *story* is different, because
it has a different effect on the reader.

Jonathan
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Wherea are the newbies
    ... happens even when people *want* advice. ... to get you to continue writing? ... I couldn't chuck out any scene, ... Once I've finished the viewpoint I started before I stopped the last ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: Worldcon Writing Debrief
    ... >> (leading one to believe that there isn't that much sensible advice to be ... > with several recent books in print, ... their writing advice is not going to be dangerous. ... L. Shelby, Writer http://homepage.mac.com/mbottorff/Writing/ ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: anyone here
    ... by offering their version of advice, you and Zen puked all over ... I can cite from yadda yadda yadda ..." ... presence in a newsgroup with "writing" in the name makes them ... I don't give a fuck what you're doing, Alan. ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Critique rules
    ... They'll give advice ... very hostile to new writers. ... their own writing and getting their own writing published. ... I mostly posted such questions on AOL, not here, but the few times I ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)