Re: Wherea are the newbies

Jonathan L Cunningham <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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>)

There's the other extreme.

Some weeks ago I encountered a woman who would praise a pile of dog***
draped on a table as powerful, creative, wonderful. Which makes any of
her comments absolutely useless, actively anti-helpful, like a void
sucking out already not present matter.

(I was having a look at some creative group, usually drawing, but that
day the other two present finished some sculptures from papier mache(?).
Her comments on my picture actually started to get on my nerves. Perhaps
I'm a perfectionist, but I didn't think any of the works done that day
deserved over-the-sky praise, but that's all she gave. How's any of them
to improve? I at least see some faults in the picture. And I would much
prefer hints on how to improve what I didn't get right. Hrmpf.)

<snip>

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:

I've seen it often enough, right here.

not to ideas.

That sounds as if you define some particular area of 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.

Shame. (And best wishes for that appointment.)

But thanks for the encouragement.

Let me know when you want someone to kick you. :)

[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?

Yes.

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.

I don't revise, I just polish the writing, and adjust and/or add things
so it makes sense with what came after. I couldn't chuck out any scene,
for example, or remove a character. The characters and events are fixed,
just sometimes the reasoning for what happened is changed.

But how far ahead (if at all) do you think *before* you write?

Usually not at all.

I've got a fresh memory of that with the last bit I added to the
writing-after-the end book of the ME.

Once I've finished the viewpoint I started before I stopped the last
time (which was work, and needed some adjusting of earlier text until I
liked the result - and all that concerns is how what's happened is seen
by the characters, not what happens) I started on a new viewpoint,
intending to go to something that had been initiated before...

Two days before, this viewpoint demonstrated his 'trick' by telling a
(prior unknown) pleasant serving maid at some festival that her mother
is sick (he's one of these uber-fast guys, putting little details into
place automatically, instantly), and offered to have a healer help her,
with magic (the locals there are afraid of magic, but a lot has been
done about to change that). Now the viewpoint and his friend go there to
talk to the mother. All _I_ decided that the woman was not yet another
irritating old hag.

And it turned out she not only figured out the right things from the
rumours and tales that are coursing around the city, she also doesn't
react oddly to the guy with all that magic, and she has an idea to
further their goal to bring magic to the people. Oh, and she's got a
talent.

I didn't know any of that when they entered the house the serving maid
lives.

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.

Yes. I don't want to plan structure, I want to see what's there after
it's written.

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.

So there's a difference?

It doesn't sound (to me) like you have a problem with the
structure of your stories.

Except I don't see whatever structure there may be.

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.

I'm not worrying in any case, I would just like to be able to spot it,
and have an idea what is meant at all.

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 can understand that.

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?

First I want to see it, then I can see what I do about it. :)

<snip>

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.

Heh. :)

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 can imagine that. Some people value stories for other things than them
being entertaining. Literary value comes to mind. (Like some people
think Shakespeare ought to be read because it's Shakespeare. <shrug>
Doesn't concern me, but I know that people value - to me - funny things.
Some even climb mountains, or watch soccer. :) Finding abstract shapes
interesting is at least interesting.)

I'll risk another metaphor. No I won't, I just deleted it as being
even more confusing!

And leave me curious.

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.)

Ok, that's like a good pot won't make a good meal, but a bad pot can
burn it. Or a fast computer won't make bad games good, but a too slow
computer can make good games awful to play.

I think the basic idea can be applied to just about anything.

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.

That also means the story structure would be different?

Hm. I think I get that.

--
Tina
WIP: Magic Earth (7/6): 101649 words
WISuspension: Seasons & Elements trilogy
Posted to Usenet newsgroup rec.arts.sf.composition.

.