Chapter Five: Page by Page
red_...@my-deja.com
This series of posts will deal with the sample chapter of _Attack of
the Rockoids_ available in .pdf form at http://www.rockoids.com/
People who aren't fascinated with the subject are requested to killfile
this thread right now.
++++++++++++
Well, first I'm going to deal with the one page "What has gone
before..."
This is by way of a summary of the action up to Chap. 5, plus what
appears to be a statement of the theme: "What inspires us?"
Generally speaking, novels start where the action starts. There
doesn't seem to be a lot of action in the first four chapters. I
suspect that they can be deleted from the book entirely, without loss
to the plot, characters, or themes.
We seem to have two characters, possibly three: Ray Perkins, Manny
Gonzales, and (perhaps) Perkins' father. Four chapters seems as if it
might be too long a space for introducing that limited cast.
We also need to know about the dreams, and the Rockoids - - although
the description which will come on page 32 of the dreams and the
description on page 40 of the Rockoids would seem to be sufficient.
So ... delete Chapters 1-4, and treat Chapter 5 as if it were Chapter
1. I believe that the author posted this chapter rather than the
actual Chapter 1 because, on some level, he too realized that this is
Chapter 1.
DISCLAIMER. Remember McIntyre's Law: Under the right circumstances,
anything I tell you can be wrong.
Here's how to tell where your story begins: Look for the place where
all the preceding action can be summarized in one or two sentences.
Example:
"Nothing she had seen at Miss Coote's Academy could have prepared May
for the grandeur of Lady Pokingham's estate."
Explanation:
While May might possibly have had many amusing adventures at Miss
Coote's, the rest of the tale takes place among the gentry at a country
estate. All the previous bits are irrelevant. Anything that is
relevant can be brought out in dialog, or (if absolutely necessary) in
a flashback. It may be necessary to move the exact point of the novel's
beginning a little forward or a little back: Perhaps this one starts as
May is packing her things at Miss Coote's, preparatory to getting on
the carriage (My first railway journey! How exciting!) to go to Lady
Pokingham's. She could reveal things in conversation with her school
chums. This could be tricky - - those school chums will need to show
up again later in the book to justify their appearance in the first
chapter.
Recall that a novel is not reality. It is a semblence of reality. It
is an illusion. A photo-realistic painting. Things do not happen at
random (the way they do in the real world) but because the author, the
artist, makes a conscious decision to make them happen that way. The
readers will help the author build this illusion as long as they can,
but the slightest thing out of place, the "Oh, come on" reaction, will
break that illusion and force the readers to start working on it all
over again. Readers do not like to do this work, and many will stop
reading at that point. Others will throw the book across the room.
This is why small details need to be right. All of the details. One
reader may be a nautical buff who knows every line on a full-rigged
frigate. Another may be a fencer who can tell if the swordplay is
hogwash. Yet another may be a horseman who can tell that the horses
you're using are motorcycles in disguise. Get the little things right
and the readers will go along on the big ones.
The fiction author is trying to tell a whopper, the real existence of
space aliens in modern America for example, and have the readers go
along with it. The readers _will_ go along with it if they trust the
author. That trust is built out of having the world the author is
building match the one the readers know to be real, right up to the
place where the whopper appears. Mark this in your notebooks: Trust is
something you can only lose once. The readers will believe in dragons
if you ask them to, but don't ask them to stop believing in oxygen.
The tiny details of the characters' lives may never show up in the
finished novel. This doesn't mean that the author doesn't have to know
all those bits, intimately. Perkins' military service may never be
mentioned, but the author should know how it happened that Perkins
signed up in the first place. Was he an officer or enlisted? Did he
join because he was bored with his civilian life, or because he
couldn't find a job no matter how hard he tried? Where did he go to
boot camp? Did he go through Anapolis, OCS, or ROTC? Did he graduate
at the top of his class or the bottom? What was his reaction to
authority? Did he get along well with the guys in his unit? Why did he
volunteer to be a SEAL? All of those things will inform how he acts
later on. Even if the author never tells the reader, the author knows
those things. This will keep the character's actions consistent. This
will build the audience's trust.
I spoke about illusion breakers: one thing that will break an illusion
is inconsistency. The readers should get a reasonable idea of how the
characters will act and react in any set of circumstances.
One good place to start a story is in media res, which brings us to....
Next time: Chapter Five, page 31
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
red_...@my-deja.com
Para 1 Line 1
[buster]. Is this the right word? Seems to give a 1950s air, though
later in the chapter we see that this is set in the present or near-
future. Would an Air Force security guard, detecting an intruder, say
this?
Para 2 Line 2
[almost a shout] what's "almost a shout"? Why not a shout? Is it
also "almost a command"?
For a different feel, one could try:
"Freeze. Hands where I can see them."
The command was accompanied by the sound a guard racking a
shotgun.
Para 3 Sentence 2 Line 3
[He thought] copyeditor error. Should read "He had thought.
Para 3 Sentence 3 Line 3-4
[But as he] make that "But when he"
[running, apparently] delete coma, delete "apparently." Consider
combining this sentence with the previous, using a coma between "safe"
and "but."
Para 4 Sentence 4 Line 6
[What to do?] delete this sentence. It slows the action, and fails to
add information we don't already have.
Sentence 5 Line 7
[desperately] delete adverb. In general, choose verbs that make
helpers unnecessary.
[old] delete adjective.
Sentence 5 Line 8
[returning] consider replacing with "turning back."
Para 5 Sentence 1 Line 10
[that inner ... surface, and] delete. Slows down the action, sounds
pretentious, and adds nothing to character.
Line 11
[almost oblivious] delete "almost." Either he's oblivious or he
isn't. If "oblivious" is the right word at all.
(Beware of the construction "almost" or "something like" or "wasn't
quite." (E.g. "His expression wasn't quite a frown.") This is lazy
description. Find the right word for the thing. The author is the one
who has to do the work, not the reader.)
[It was dark,]
If Perkins is oblivious, then he won't notice that it's dark. Close up
the paragraph between "rescue" and "For a moment." Make "It was dark"
the beginning of paragraph 5.
Perhaps the darkness should have gone earlier, when Perkins looked
behind to see the source of the shout.
Remember what a paragraph is, and what it does for you. A paragraph is
a group of sentences, including a topic sentence, that convey a
complete thought.
Line 13-18
[He thought ... undetected.] Delete the entire byplay with The Shadow.
This distracts from the current action, and commits a major sin against
suspension of disbelief. Never remind the audience that they're
reading fiction - - "rather silly pulp fiction."
For example, if you are writing a melodrama, don't have it go like this:
DAN THE BANKER
Ha ha, little Nell! The mortgage is due! I shall foreclose
upon the old farmstead
and cast you and your aged mother into the snow ... unless ...
unless you consent
to marry me!
LITTLE NELL
You sound like the villain in a cheap melodrama!
At this point the audience will say "By Jove, that's because he _is_
the villain in a cheap melodrama!"
Suspension of disbelief is gone, and pretty soon the audience will
notice that the characters are standing, not in a cozy farm kitchen but
in front of painted canvas flats and that the actress playing Little
Nell is old enough to be Dan the Banker's mother. Rotten tomatoes soon
follow.
Unless the very next line is
DAN THE BANKER
That's because this _is_ a cheap melodrama! Nevertheless, you
shall not escape!
and you're off into humor, breaking the fourth wall, and all kinds of
metatheatre, Little Nell's response should be:
LITTLE NELL
No, no! I shall never consent! For I love Honest John!
The audience's expectations are something that you can play with, but
something that you should respect. Consider what questions are going
to form in your readers' minds, and answer them before the reader quite
thinks of them.
Piling on more words is not always the answer.
Next post: Page 32......
Brenda
red_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Chapter Five: Page by Page
>
> This series of posts will deal with the sample chapter of _Attack of
> the Rockoids_ available in .pdf form at http://www.rockoids.com/
<much stuff snipped>
Now I feel guilty. Poor old Jim, who doubtless has useful work in life to
accomplish, hungry mouths to feed, children to get shoes for, and here he
is slaving away in this barren vineyard.
Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough, author of HOW LIKE A GOD, from Tor Books
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
red_...@my-deja.com
Para 1 Lines 1-3
[Then he ... or not.] Delete. Adds nothing to the description in the
opening paragraphs.
Para 2 Sentence 1 Line 4
[choice, really.] Delete "really," insert period after "choice."
"Really" is a placeholder word, which adds length without improving
sense.
Sentence 2 Line 4
[somewhere to safety and so he] Delete "somewhere to safety." Delete
"and so" then begin the next sentence with "He."
Somewhere, somehow, someone - - all of these are cues that the author
doesn't know either. But the author is _supposed_ to know. The readers
are trusting the author to guide them. If the readers get the idea that
the author doesn't know what's what, then they are less likely to go
along with him. Yeah, yeah, sure, it's _Perkins_ who doesn't know where
he's going. Putting in the _somewhere_ doesn't put across that idea.
We'll get it later when he pulls out a map.
Line 6
[searchlights above.] Delete "above" and put the period after
"searchlights."
Para 4 Sentence 1 Line 9
[But his] Delete "But" and start the sentence with "His." Entirely too
many paragraphs in this chapter start with conjunctions. This "But"
adds no information and slows us down by a beat.
Do we hear the gravel crunching beneath his feet? Is this gravel the
natural terrain, or was it placed there while constructing the base?
Para 5 Sentence 1 Line 11
[And he tripped] Another paragraph beginning with a conjuction. Delete
the "And" and close up this paragraph with the last paragraph. We
should now read "...beneath his feet. He tripped...."
Lines 11-12
[circular projection....apparently] Delete. Wordy, confusing, and
provides no more information than "a manhole cover" in the same sentence
does.
Sentence 2 Line 12
[could not keep his balance and as he] Delete. Redundant with "tripped
and fell" in the previous sentence.
Line 13
[grazed] replace with "grazing."
Para 7 Sentence 1 Line 15
[All ... but] Delete. Close up this paragraph with the preceeding
paragraph so the first sentence reads "unconsciousness . . . then the
dreams came."
Line 16
[firepower] delete "power." Accuracy.
[skies] replace with "void."
Lines 16-17
[above ... was] delete. Confusing. "Above all else" can mean "more
important than" or "physically superior to." Don't slow down the
readers by making them wonder. Our hero is running through the night,
surrounded by armed guards. We've just introduced a fantasy element.
Everything has to be simple here.
Line 18
[yet again] delete.
Para 8 Sentence 1 Line 19
[And then] Delete "And." Sentence now begins "Then." Generally
speaking, the construction "and then" is unnecessary, weak, and
confusing. Choose either "and" or "then."
Para 9 Lines 20-22
Delete this whole paragraph. A fall like this on gravel, even running,
shouldn't produce more than minor abrasions and lacerations. He's been
knocked unconscious. Consider having him vomit now. He may have a lump
on his head, and some scalp bleeding.
Para 10 Sentence 1 Line 23
[hurt ... luck.] Delete everything from this sentence after "hurt."
Migraine medicine won't help with a concussion, it distracts the reader
away from the night-time scene with guards and searchlights, and he
doesn't have the medicine anyway. Does the fact that he has migraines
have any bearing on the plot and the resolution of this story? If not,
don't mention them. If so, find somewhere else to plant this
information.
Sentence 2 Line 25
[the caked] Delete "the." Consider deleting "caked."
Para 11 Sentence 1 Line 26
Delete entire sentence.
Sentence 2 Lines 26-27
How did his pants and shirt come to have gaping holes in them? A fall
on gravel, even from running speed, shouldn't have done that. What did
he tear them on? If he tore them on the bushes, say so. Close up this
paragraph with the preceding one.
Para 12 Sentence 1 Line 28
[and sat up briefly] Delete.
Line 29
[again.] Delete. The aches hadn't yet spread through his body the first
time.
Sentence 3 and following, Lines 29-40
[He didn't...but the... closing in on him.] Delete from "for this..." at
the end of sentence 2 to the end of the page, and the first two lines on
page 33.
We've come to the rattlesnake.
Every word in a novel should reveal character, advance the plot, or
support the theme. The best words do all three. The rattlesnake
incident does none of those things.
Never mind that rattlesnakes don't hunt humans, that it's unlikely to be
hunting at night, and that Perkins has to have one heck of a set of ears
and eyes on him to hear and see the rattler at all. What's the thing
doing here in this book?
Snakes can symbolize temptation, or wisdom, or several other things in
Western culture. Is there a theme of temptation that Perkins must
overcome or wisdom that he must gain?
Many people are irrationally afraid of snakes. Is Perkins one of them?
If so, this falls into the category of things that the author needs to
know but the readers don't, unless, before the book is over, Perkins
must cross a room filled with snakes to reach his goal, befriend an
alien who looks exactly like a snake, or otherwise grow and change
vis-a-vis snakes.
On the other hand, if all the snake is there for is to make it difficult
for Perkins to just hide in the bushes until the guards get tired and go
home, then there is no good justification for the snake.
Would there be a substantial change to the plot if the snake became a
spider, or an urgent need to go to the bathroom? If not ... there's no
reason for the snake to be here.
One more thing before we leave this page. Fire up the old wordprocessor
and go through with a global search and replace to remove all the
exclamation points. Fortunately we deleted all the sentences using them
on this page already. We'll find more - - many too more - - by the end
of the chapter. Get rid of them now. The only place they can be used
is in dialog, and then sparingly. Think of yourself as being given a
quota of exclamation points. You have one per book. Use it wisely.
Next time: Page 33 ...
Andrea
> Chapter Five: Page 31
>
> Para 1 Line 1
If I post a novel chapter on the web and then insult everyone in the
newsgroup, will you do a close edit of my stuff too? I'm sure if I put my
mind to it I could achieve a few grandiose idiocies and, of course, check
my irony detector at the door. :)
A
red_...@my-deja.com
rather than copy edits, and I don't (generally) work on samples of less
than a chapter. It's too hard to see the shape of things at shorter
length.
For example, in the sample posted a bit upstream with the gent getting
off the railway carriage and learning in the pub that bannishers aren't
appreciated around there, my only comment would be "You seem to do good
interiors, but not-so-good exteriors. Try rewriting the exterior scenes
while sitting at an outdoors cafe."
Actually, I expect that the author was rushing through the town,
hurrying to get to the scene with the barman, a scene which had more
information to impart.
When looking at the entire chapter, I'd be able to tell, perhaps, how
much emphasis should go on the arrival. Not until I look at the full
book could I make suggestions about how important having the town there
at all is.
Best,
Jim Macdonald
T Nielsen Hayden
>You don't need to go that far. I do edits, but mostly developmental
>rather than copy edits, and I don't (generally) work on samples of less
>than a chapter. It's too hard to see the shape of things at shorter
>length.
Jim likes working with longer samples because they're big enough for him to
play with. We're talking large-scale structure here. Gross morphology.
What's really scary is to watch him, working in realtime, take a student's
novel-length plot, pull its little skeleton apart at the joints, and
reassemble the bones into a more graceful and functional animal.
Signed,
One of his fellow-teachers at Viable Paradise
--
Teresa Nielsen Hayden
Tor Books :: t...@panix.com
Lisa A Leutheuser
T Nielsen Hayden <t...@panix.com> wrote:
>red_...@my-deja.com wrote in <83tf7a$j5u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>
>>You don't need to go that far. I do edits, but mostly developmental
>>rather than copy edits, and I don't (generally) work on samples of less
>>than a chapter. It's too hard to see the shape of things at shorter
>>length.
>
>Jim likes working with longer samples because they're big enough for him to
>play with. We're talking large-scale structure here. Gross morphology.
>What's really scary is to watch him, working in realtime, take a student's
>novel-length plot, pull its little skeleton apart at the joints, and
>reassemble the bones into a more graceful and functional animal.
<sigh>
> Signed,
>
> One of his fellow-teachers at Viable Paradise
I've been following the Viable Paradise webpage for a couple of years
now (I see the dates for 2000 are already set), but the timing and
has never quite been right for me to apply. The format seems about
perfect: just a week long and, IIRC, writers can choose to work on
novels, unlike the two Clarions where short stories are the focus.
Lisa Leutheuser
eal (at) umich.edu
http://www.umich.edu/~eal
Morgan E. Smith
On Thu, 23 Dec 1999, Andrea wrote:
> <red_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:83rd22$63e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Chapter Five: Page 31
> >
> > Para 1 Line 1
>
> If I post a novel chapter on the web and then insult everyone in the
> newsgroup, will you do a close edit of my stuff too? I'm sure if I put my
> mind to it I could achieve a few grandiose idiocies and, of course, check
> my irony detector at the door. :)
>
Andrea, you don't need to go through all that trouble: Pat (and many
others) gave me some great feedback. And let me take this opportunity to
thank you for a perfect Christmas gift: that of your time and expertaise,
all of you.
Happy Holidays,
Morgan
Gene Steinberg
>If I post a novel chapter on the web and then insult everyone in the
>newsgroup, will you do a close edit of my stuff too? I'm sure if I put my
>mind to it I could achieve a few grandiose idiocies and, of course, check
>my irony detector at the door. :)
Just make sure you keep your sense of humor :)
Actually what has really happened here is that I have been insulted by a
number of regulars from this newsgroup (from the absolute beginning, the
first message I posted here). I've just answered the questions asked,
and corrected the factual misstatements.
Some people just don't like having answers that do not fit in with their
expectations (of course I can't help that).
As to the page-by-page criticisms: Do the words "get a life" apply? I
think so.
You really need to put this all in perspective. What compels these
people to spend so much of their free time picking apart the same few
paragraphs? We could spend lots of time dealing with that--in a
newsgroup devoted to psychology :)
Now maybe I should rename the book "The Rockoids Bible." Then the
dissections would make sense :)
--
Peace,
Gene Steinberg
Co-author, "Attack of the Rockoids"
http://www.rockoids.com
red_...@my-deja.com
Lines 1-2 were already deleted.
Para 1 Lines 3-5
[Perkins ... predator] Delete. One comment along the way: While we're
deleting this whole one- sentence paragraph (dealing as it does with
the unnecessary rattlesnake), the word "horrible" calls to mind the
rule (strong guideline, really) that one should avoid using words which
are also the labels of literary genres. The writing should induce a
feeling in the reader, rather than having the author pop up to tell the
reader how to feel. Thus, be very careful of using the
words "horrible," "mysterious," "romantic," or "science-fictional."
They're clues that your writing is getting lazy, sloppy, or both.
Para 2 Sentence 1 Line 6
[the map drawn by Gonzales.] rewrite to simplify and render more
active. "Gonzales' map" for example. (Strunk & White would
say "Gonzales's map.") Consider renaming Gonzales if he's going to be a
continuing major character to avoid the problem of forming possessives
with names ending in _s_. No matter which way you go, about half of
your readers will think that you're wrong. If the character must have
a name ending in _s_ pick one way of forming the possessive and be
consistent.
Para 3 Sentences 1-2 Lines 8-9
[It had all ... him, then - - .] Delete entire paragraph. This action
took place only a few minutes before. A flashback is unnecessary.
Ending the paragraph with an em dash is lazy. Finish your thought.
Para 4 Sentence 1 Line 8
[Oh ... Manny!] Set global search-and-replace to remove all exclamation
points. You're allowed one per book. Set this sentence in italics to
show that it is thought, or otherwise distinguish thoughts from dialog
from description.
Lines 8-9
[Of course ... to him!] Delete sentence. Provides no new information,
slows action, wordy. We _got_ the idea already.
Para 5 Sentences 1-2 Lines 12-13
[Perkins resisted ... what happened] Delete. Perkins had already
turned around to see. Sloppy copyediting here. One unarmed man
against a group of armed and alert guards cannot rescue anyone.
Sentence 3 Line 14
[beyond hope] Delete. Cliche.
Para 6 Sentence 2 Line 17
[imprisoned, facing] Add "and was" before "facing."
Sentence 3 Line 17
[He] Replace with "He'd" or "He had." Sloppy copyediting.
Para 7 Sentence 2 Line 19
[But something] Something? What? The author should know this. The
word "something" meanst that the author doesn't have a clue either.
The readers will lose their trust. Delete this entire sentence and
replace with "But he pressed on."
Para 8 Sentence 1 Line 21
[But some sort of security alert ... ahead.] Beginning paragraph with a
conjunction ... again. Delete "But" since it adds no information. The
sentence has the same meaning with and without the word. Slows the the
action. "Some sort of...." What sort of? Does the author know? What
kinds of security alert are possible? Delete "some sort of," replace
with "A." End the sentence after "afoot." Delete the rest of the
paragraph. See above about "horror."
Para 9 Lines 24-25
[He wanted...in his ears.] That rattlesnake again. Another one-sentence
paragraph. Delete entire paragraph.
Para 10 Sentence 1 Line 26
[back, perhaps] End sentence after "back." Delete from "perhaps"
through "and...." Author has clearly never seen a gate at a military
base. They're big, brightly lit, and crawling with guards. In the
middle of a security alert, they'd be moreso.
Sentence 2 Line 27
[Maybe... he thought.] Italicize thoughts. Delete words "he thought."
Para 11 Sentence 1 Line 28
[had opened] Delete "had." Passive, wordy.
Sentence 2 Line 29-30
[apparently ... uniform] Delete this section. Enlisted don't wear
medals on their working uniforms. Under low-light conditions the
stripes (probably a subdued collar device) will be invisible at greater
than conversational range. The guard is a leader if he gives a command
which the others follow. It is unnecessary to identify him
as "apparently their leader."
Line 31
[his troops] change to "the troops."
Sentence 3 Line 32.
[he observed ... left.] Delete. Antecedent for "he" is unclear - -
could be either the leader or Perkins. Which direction the barracks
lies is unimportant in any case.
Which all brings up a bigger question: Why, in the middle of a security
alert, with an intruder captured a few yards away and mere minutes
before, are the guards standing down? Rethink this entire penetration
of the top secret hangar. It just doesn't work.
Para 12 Sentence 1 Line 33
[There were] "There were" is a weak opening. Delete and rewrite the
sentence to be more vivid and active. For example: "Small bushes grew
in scattered clumps between Perkins and the hangar."
Sentence 3 Line 35-37
[He stayed ... victim.] Delete all after "hidden." It's that pesky
rattler again.
Para 13 Lines 38-39
Delete this entire paragraph.
Para 14 Line 40.
[Only] Replace with "until" and close up with "hidden" in the sentence
above.
I notice that most of the paragraphs are one sentence long, and none
are over three sentences. For an exercise, rewrite with all the
paragraphs averaging five sentences and one hundred words.
The rattlesnake is gone now. If it's a thematically important
rattlesnake it can come back, but only if it's written realistically.
The approach to the hangar and the actions of the guards need to be
rethought. Recall that some percentage of the readership will have
military experience or have done reading in the military fiction
genre. Do some research. One important fact about fiction is this: It
requires as much research as non-fiction.
Being a writer means you have homework every day for the rest of your
life.
Next time ... Page 34
red_...@my-deja.com
Brenda <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
[snip]
> Now I feel guilty. Poor old Jim, who doubtless has useful work in
life to
> accomplish, hungry mouths to feed, children to get shoes for, and here
he
> is slaving away in this barren vineyard.
>
> Brenda
Sometimes examinging a work with a lot of errors can be more useful than
examining a near-miss or good works. In the latter two cases sometimes
all you can say are "it doesn't quite work but I can't put my finger on
it," or "good job -- keep doing what you're doing."
This critique isn't for the benefit of the authors, but for the benefit
of those (lurkers and others) who might get something out of it.
My own works get treated this same way, both by me before anyone sees
them, and by my editors and copyeditors.
Best,
Jim Macdonald
red_...@my-deja.com
Para 1 Sentence 2 Line 1
[If ... was time.] Copyediting error. Should be "were time." The need
for speed hasn't been established, nor is there any need to rush.
Delete this sentence. Close up the previous sentence (Soon... gone)
with the preceeding paragraph.
Para 2 Sentences 1-2 Lines 2-4
[Perkins thought ... show fear.] General comment: picking the right
nouns will allow one to dispense with adjectives. "Beady eyes" is a
cliche. Snakes are not noted for their ability to sense fear in their
prey. It's unlikely that a man can see a snake's eyes at a dozen
yards. Delete this entire paragraph.
Para 3 Sentences 1-2 Lines 5-7
[He couldn't ... even now.] Delete this entire paragraph. Exercise:
parse sentence 2, then rewrite more clearly.
Para 5 Line 11
[But] Beginning the paragraph with a conjunction. Delete.
[for some reason] Again, implies that the author couldn't think of a
reason either. Try to come up with a plausible reason, or a semi-
plausible reason, or even an implausible reason, why the doors wouldn't
close. The doors didn't close as a safety feature. The doors didn't
close because there was a power failure. The doors didn't close
because a mouse got jammed in the gears. Anything at all is better
than the lazy "for some reason." Best is coming up with a real,
genuine, believable reason why the doors won't close. If the author
can't think of one, he or she needs to come up with some other way into
the hangar. Delete this phrase.
Para 6 Sentence 1 Line 12
[What ... luck!] Yes, it is incredible. For this reason it doesn't
belong in fiction. Delete this paragraph. Fiction is the art of
making the untrue believable. "Incredible" means "unbelievable."
Para 7 Line 13-14
[The gap ... sneak inside.] Close up with previous paragraph.
Para 8 Line 15
[There wasn't ... act!] "There wasn't" is a weak opening, just
as "there was" is weak. The sense of urgency should come from the
actions and reactions of the character, not from the author's
narration. Delete this paragraph.
Para 9 Sentence 1 Line 16
[boldly ran] Adjective weakens verb. Delete "boldly."
Sentence 2 Line 17
[between the small cracks.] Copyediting error. No small cracks are
present, and what's between small cracks is solid material. Replace
phrase with "through the gap."
Sentence 3 Line 18
[inside] Put a period after "inside" to end the sentence here. Recast
the sentence, if possible, to remove "there was" opening. (Note: if
necessary to show a drawing down of the excitement level, "There was"
can be acceptable.)
Sentence 3 Line 19
[the door] This is now the start of the next sentence. "The door...
thud." No exclamation point.
Para 10 Line 20
Delete this paragraph. Unnecessary. We already know that he's inside:
We just saw him do it.
Para 11 Line 21
[He was ... feeling.] If the character is frightened, we need to learn
this through his words and actions. The narrator isn't the one to tell
us. Delete this paragraph.
Para 12 Sentence 1 Line 23
[of man.] Either "of a man" or "of men." Copyediting error.
Para 13
Delete. (Another unnecessary paragraph, beginning with a conjunction,
one sentence long.)
Para 14 Lines 25-26
Don't start sentences with conjunctions if no additional information is
given that way. If we are going to be concerned with a missing
flashlight now, we should have been shown the flashlight earlier and
learned its importance. Add the flashlight in an earlier scene.
Better still, delete this paragraph. We'll see that the flashlight is
a squirrel cage, just like the rattlesnake was.
Para 15 Line 27
[And ... in there!] Delete this paragraph. Wordy, unnecessary. False
importance given by exclamation point.
Para 16-17 Lines 28-32
He might as well have pulled the flashlight out of his pocket for all
the difference losing it made to the plot. As a rule, if someone loses
somthing, it's gone. If he needs it badly, then getting a replacement
should be a major plot element. Since whether or not he has a
flashlight makes no difference to the outcome of the chapter, just give
him his flashlight and let's get on with it. Close up these two
paragraphs into one. How does one go about feeling with a grim smile?
Rewrite and smooth. He had the flashlight in his pocket all along.
Para 18 Sentence 1 Line 33
[But there was] Delete. Sentence starts with "No," and ends
with "here." No exclamation point.
Para 19 Sentence 1 Lines 34-35
[lying about] Jet aircraft don't lie about. Delete phrase. Close up
this paragraph with the preceeding one.
Para 20 Sentence 4 Line 38
[It just ... up!] Delete sentence. The author is at risk of having the
audience agree with him.
Para 20 Lines 36-38
[most of those rumors] Most of _which_ rumors? Make that "most
rumors." Military secrets do in fact exist. So clarify which ones.
Secrets dealing with UFOs and space aliens. Delete all the exclamation
points. Remove the "But" from sentence 2. So far we haven't seen any
extraordinary security measures. The guards have been remarkably
incompetent.
So far, we've learned that Perkins is afraid of the dark and afraid of
snakes. In a little bit we're going to learn that he's
claustrophobic. This suggests that his backstory includes something
like being held prisoner in a small, dark, snake-infested cell.
If so, these elements can be introduced, but they'll have to be brought
in subtly. Furthermore, they need to add to the real complications in
Perkins' situation and have some bearing on the resolution of the
story. Real complications, that is, not false ones that don't have any
reason to be there other than fill pages.
Someone may have a fear of flying - - but if he's never called on to
ride in an airplane there's no need to mention it.
We're beginning to see a problem which will become more acute later.
Perkins is on his own here, which means that there's no one to watch
his reactions, and no one to talk with about what he's seeing and what
he's doing. This sort of thing is lots easier to do with two people.
Are we _sure_ that Manny got captured? This section would be a lot
easier to write if he hadn't been caught yet. Go back and rewrite this
chapter with Manny as a viewpoint character.
Next time ... page 35
Brenda
red_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> We're beginning to see a problem which will become more acute later.
> Perkins is on his own here, which means that there's no one to watch
> his reactions, and no one to talk with about what he's seeing and what
> he's doing.
As a more general point, Perkins is possibly not a good name for an action
hero. It is not a surname that connotes strength and will. For instance,
in HAVE HIS CARCASE Perkins is a wimpy schoolteacher too weak and small to
be a credible suspect for the crime. Since the work is set more or less in
the present, a quick perusal of a phone book will turn up many surnames
commonly in use today. (Historical surnames can be found in old phone
books, or failing that, genealogical records.)
Richard Horton
On Thu, 23 Dec 1999 11:20:47 GMT, Gene Steinberg <ge...@rockoids.com>
wrote:
>As to the page-by-page criticisms: Do the words "get a life" apply? I
>think so.
>
If you don't want to be a better writer, sure those words apply.
That's the whole darn point! You apparently don't want to improve.
Which is fine as far as it goes.
Most of the rest of use find these microcrits useful, not because they
help make _Attack of the Rockoids_ slightly better, but because taking
their lessons to heart makes our writing better.
If you aren't interested in doing anything more with AotR, that's
fine. Geez, no one says it's a crime to try to sell work of that
quality, or even to write something like that and leave it as is.
But some of us would like to write something =better=.
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.sfsite.com/tangent)
Rachel Brown
> As a more general point, Perkins is possibly not a good name for an
action
> hero. It is not a surname that connotes strength and will. For
instance,
> in HAVE HIS CARCASE Perkins is a wimpy schoolteacher too weak and small
to
> be a credible suspect for the crime.
I'll also add that if you do decide to name your hero Perkins, you should
avoid any references to him "perking up." (Wrote a sentence in my novel
today in which I started to use the word mollified, then decided it was a
bad idea given that the character in question is named Molly.) I think
that bit about Perkins' ears perking up was in a paragraph Red Mike advised
cutting altogether, otherwise I'm sure he'd have mentioned it.
Rachel
Gene Steinberg
wrote:
> Since the work is set more or less in
>the present, a quick perusal of a phone book will turn up many surnames
>commonly in use today.
Aer you quite sure it's set more or less in the present?
red_...@my-deja.com
Paragraph from previous page, Line 1
[dutifully] Is this the right word? Was entering details on the map
Gonzales' duty?
Para 1 Line 3
Close up this paragraph with the previous, to avoid ambiguity about
whether this is an elevator on the map or in the hangar that Perkins is
seeing.
Line 3
[circled] add "on the map"
[around] add "the hangar"
Line 4
[right away.] New paragraph here. We're no longer talking about the map
or the elevator; we're talking about the hangar.
Shining the light about while looking for a television camera seems a
particularly pointless thing to do. If there is one, shining the light
directly on it will probably bring guards. If he finds and disables
one, this will also probably bring guards. Should Perkins have brought
a night-vision device of some kind, or should he be working by feel?
Para 2 Lines 7-8
[How could they ... to hide!] Delete entire paragraph. If there's
nothing to hide, this will be a very short book. The readers know
there's something there; so does the protagonist. We're just wasting
time with this paragraph.
Para 3 Sentence 1 Line 9
[And then] Delete. Sentence starts with "There." "And then" is an
empty phrase. (The exclamation point at the end of this sentence should
already be gone thanks to global search and replace.)
Para 4 Sentence 1 Line 11
[there, huddling] How does one huddle while walking? Replace with "to
the elevator, staying."
Line 12
[some sort of] Previously noted problem. Replace with "an active" or "a
passive," as the fit takes you.
Line 14
[hard concrete] As opposed to soft concrete? Delete "hard." This use
of an adjective would be justified only if the hardness of concrete
became important later on; if he had to drill through it, or fell on it,
or otherwise interacted with the floor.
This brings to mind the next question: When did the ground turn from
gravel to concrete? Drop back and add description as Perkins approaches
the hangar.
Paragraphs 5-9 Lines 15-24
[He passed ... face clear.] This is what I call a "False Arrgh." An
apparently dangerous or exciting situation turns out to be mundane.
Usually you find this sort of thing across the chapter breaks in Hardy
Boys or Goosebumps books. It's also a favorite trick at the end of the
reel in movie serials. Delete this whole incident.
Other problems in this section, which I will mention only in passing,
include the passivity of "the flashlight was shut off" (replace with
"Perkins shut the flashlight off"), overuse of adjectives
("slippery substance," "tattered shirt"), and the question of whether
there would have been a puddle of jet fuel on the hangar floor at that
point. "Horrible" has been treated above; it's usually a poor
word-choice. Is jet fuel actually slimy?
Para 9 Sentence 2 Lines 26-27
[door and ... frustrated!] Delete all after "and." Sentence now ends
with "door." We should learn how he feels from his actions, not from
the narrator.
Para 10 Sentence 2 Line 28
[safecracking] Is this the right word? No safe is in evidence.
Sentence 3 Line 29
[that incident] becomes "one incident."
[some nameless sheik's] becomes "a sheik's." (See previous remarks
about the author sounding unsure.)
Line 30
[briefly] Delete.
Line 31
[and then] becomes "then."
Para 11 Sentence 1 Line 32
Close up this paragraph with the previous one. We're still talking
about the same incident.
[skin then] delete "then," and put coma after "skin."
Line 33
[mysterious] Delete.
[nerve gas and he] End sentence after "gas." Next sentence begins "He."
Sentence 2 Line 34
[he once again fervently wished] Delete "once ... fervently." He hasn't
wished anything a first time yet. Adverb weakens verb.
Para 12 Sentence 1 Line 36
[Then Perkins ... it again.] Perkins has just looked at the map.
Rewrite to read "Perkins looked at the map again."
Sentence 2 Line 37
[outside ... not inside!] Remove exclamation point. This brings up the
question: If Perkins had thought the secuity panel was _outside_, why in
the world had he gone to all the trouble and taken all the risks of
going _inside_? This needs to be worked out and rewritten.
Sentence 4 Line 38
[silly] What makes the numbers silly?
Sentence 6 Line 39
[ventured ...] Copyediting error. Add a fourth dot.
The story seems to have gone seriously astray at this point. If Perkins
doesn't trust Gonzales, why is he using the map? Is there reason to
believe the map is mistaken? Did Perkins examine the map before
entering the base? It seems that he both has and hasn't.
Para 13 Sentence 1 Line 40
[dutifully] Is it Perkins' duty to type numbers? Is this the right
word? Consider using another adverb, if an adverb is required,
especially in light of Gonzales "dutifully" entering details at the top
of this page.
The security panel is never described. I take it that it has some sort
of keyboard/keypad with an "enter" key on it. Describe the security
panel.
Go back and add more description of important items and scenes, to add a
sense of place.
Sentence 2 (continued on page 36)
[sequence ... Enter key] Multiple sequences aren't in evidence. Rewrite
to the effect of "He pressed the 'Enter' key after he typed each
number."
(Page 36 Line 1)
[... and waited ... waited.] Replace with simply "and waited." If the
character is bored, that's one thing. If the readers get bored that's
something else. No information imparted by the repetition.
Next time ... the rest of page 36
red_...@my-deja.com
Line 1 was treated in the discussion of page 35.
Para 1 Sentence 1 Lines 2-3
Another one-sentence paragraph. Close up with previous paragraph.
[he'd trigger the alarm] CE error. Should read "he'd triggered the
alarm."
[so rapidly he jumped] CE error. Should read "so rapidly that he
jumped."
Para 2 Sentence 1 Lines 4-5
[reminiscent of ... New York City.] When had Perkins been in a New York
City tenement? Which old tenements? Draws reader's attention away from
Nevada and the current problem. Uses generic image rather than
describing the current situation. Delete this fragment.
Sentence 2 Line 5
[The walls inside] As opposed to what? Further, in a moment we're going
to be talking about the light, which isn't part of the walls. Make this
"The inside"
[appeared to be] replace with "were." Wordy, and unnecessary unless the
appearance of the inside is deceptive and the walls and light are
actually something else.
Line 6
[deeply scratched, dark, enamel paint] Too many adjectives. Delete one
of them. Or two of them. Maybe three of them. Let's go with "dark
enamel paint" and delete "deeply scratched."
Sentence 3 Line 6
[There was] Weak opening. Replace with "Deep scratches marred the
walls;" and continue.
Line 7
[ceiling above] Delete "above." That's where ceilings usually are.
[conveying] Should read "conveyed." Is any form of "convey" the right
word here? Find a verb that suits what light does.
[shadowy,] Delete. Too many adjectives, delete the confusing one. We
now read "ceiling conveyed an oppressive light."
[small] Delete.
Para 3 Sentence 1 Line 8
Perkins is now apparently inside the elevator, without having entered
it. CE error. Add a line to the effect of "Perkins took a step
forward to enter the elevator."
[And nothing] Paragraph beginning with an empty conjuction. Delete
"And." Perkins has not only entered the elevator, but turned to face
the doors. Say so. "...enter the elevator and turned to face the
door."
[nothing but] Is this true? How about "A conventional-looking numbered
panel was inset in the wall of the elevator, to the right of the door."
Para 4 Sentence 1 Line 10
[It slid shut.] What, the numbered panel? Unclear antecedent for "it."
Make this "The door slid shut."
Para 5 Sentence 1 Line 11
Another one-sentence paragraph beginning with a conjunction. Close this
up with the previous paragraph and make the two sentences into one: "The
door slid shut but the elevator didn't move."
Para 6 Sentence 1 Line 12
[Now] Unnecessary word. Loses a beat. Delete.
[had never been quite accustomed himself] CE error. Delete "been."
Never accustomed? From earliest childhood? Had he tried? Or is this
the result of some misadventure in his later life? More interesting if
the latter.
Is claustrophobia important to the plot? If so, this can work. If not,
then delete all the byplay with his reaction to small spaces.
Para 7 Sentence 1 Line 17
[choice was] CE error. Should read "choices were."
Para 8 Sentence 1 Line 18
[dutifully] Perkins and Manny seem to have a lot of duties. Delete this
word.
Sentence 3 Line 20
[about thirty seconds or so] CE error. Redundant phrases. Delete either
"about" or "or so."
Para 9
Had Perkins been in an elevator accident? Someone close to him? Why
does he think this?
Para 10 Sentence 1 Lines 25-26
[almost shuddered!] The exclamation point is, of course, already gone.
How does one go about "almost" shuddering? Delete "almost." Is
"shuddered" the right word? What was his actual reaction to the door
opening so quickly? The door slid open so rapidly that he jumped back
up in line 3 of this page. Does he need to show a reaction this time?
Para 12 Sentence 1 Line 29
[With perhaps a little too much eagerness] Delete this phrase. Wordy,
unclear. Sentence now begins "He."
Line 30
[little ... small] Delete one of these two adjectives.
Para 13 Sentence 1 Lines 31-32
[He looked ... long.] Delete. Cliche. Close up this paragraph with the
previous paragraph.
[seemed ... at the surface] Redundant. Is there some way in which this
room _isn't_ conventional? If not, then delete "at the surface."
Consider replacing "seemed" with "was."
Para 14 Sentences 1-3 Lines 33-35
Weak, generic descriptions. Rethink, rewrite.
[There were ... displays, but] Delete this section. Paragraph now
begins "Nothing." Close up this paragraph with preceeding paragraph.
Sentence 4 Lines 36-37
[entrance ... water heater.] CE error. Sounds like there's an entrance
to the water heater. Reverse order in which the water heater and the
bathroom are mentioned.
Para 15 Sentence 1 Line 38
[Perkins ... irritated.] Delete. This should come from the readers'
watching Perkins' actions and words, not from the narrator telling us.
Sentence 2-3 Line 38-39
["Damn! ... chase."] And this is where it comes. After "Damn!" (and
I'll allow this exclamation point, this time) add "Perkins said aloud.
Next sentence begins "This." Beware cliche, but again this is allowed
in dialog, if the character is one who speaks in cliches.
Para 16 Sentence 1 Line 40
[Then] Delete "Then." Sentence begins "He."
This entire page needs to be reparagraphed.
Next time ... Page 37
McFadden
Brenda <clo...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:38641D40...@erols.com...
> As a more general point, Perkins is possibly not a good name for an action
> hero. It is not a surname that connotes strength and will. For instance,
> in HAVE HIS CARCASE Perkins is a wimpy schoolteacher too weak and small to
> be a credible suspect for the crime.
I disagree with your point fairly strongly. A man called Perkins* can be
strong and heroic and wilful, and if the author does their job then an
ordinary name for such a character will be a boon to believability. On the
other hand, a name that satisfies stereotypes will never help make a badly
written character believable.
Damian...
* No, my name isn't Perkins.
T Nielsen Hayden
8C5CA3.043...@news.earthlink.net>:
>In article <38641D40...@erols.com>, Brenda <clo...@erols.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Since the work is set more or less in
>>the present, a quick perusal of a phone book will turn up many surnames
>>commonly in use today.
>
>Aer you quite sure it's set more or less in the present?
If we can't tell, it's your fault.
Brenda
McFadden wrote:
Well, the author -does- have to do his job. I suggest though that choosing
Perkins makes that job slightly more uphill. There are tons of neutral names --
why fix on one that doesn't slant the way you want?
T Nielsen Hayden
<845nau$c8p$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>:
>
>Brenda <clo...@erols.com> wrote in message
>news:38641D40...@erols.com...
>
>> As a more general point, Perkins is possibly not a good name for an
>> action hero. It is not a surname that connotes strength and will.
>> For instance, in HAVE HIS CARCASE Perkins is a wimpy schoolteacher too
>> weak and small to be a credible suspect for the crime.
>
> I disagree with your point fairly strongly. A man called Perkins* can
> be
>strong and heroic and wilful, and if the author does their job then an
>ordinary name for such a character will be a boon to believability. On
>the other hand, a name that satisfies stereotypes will never help make a
>badly written character believable.
On the other other hand, this character needs all the help he can get.
Helen Kenyon
Steinberg <ge...@rockoids.com> writes
>
>As to the page-by-page criticisms: Do the words "get a life" apply? I
>think so.
>
improve) will learn a lot from Jim Macdonald's line by line critique.
Critiquing very good stuff won't help a beginner. Stories as bad as
_The Eye of Argon_ are not much use either, because most early efforts
are not that bad. Rockoids shows many typical beginner's mistakes, the
sort of mistakes that Peter Knutsen was complaining about in another
thread. i.e. that it's all rather flat and boring. Peter was saying
that he couldn't critique many of the stories in the Critters' queue;
Jim is showing that you don't have to enjoy a story in order to do a
good, useful critique of it. He's also showing that *if revised
thoroughly* there is hope for Rockoids yet.
>You really need to put this all in perspective. What compels these
>people to spend so much of their free time picking apart the same few
>paragraphs? We could spend lots of time dealing with that--in a
>newsgroup devoted to psychology :)
>
>Now maybe I should rename the book "The Rockoids Bible." Then the
>dissections would make sense :)
>
You have, albeit unwittingly, done a great service to beginning SF
writers and those, like Patricia and Jim who give their time to help
them. You have provided a story positively dripping with typical
mistakes, which by publishing it on the web, is now available for all to
read. The frustrating thing is, Gene, you're not a no-hoper -- or you
wouldn't be, if you actually listened to advice and re-wrote taking it
into account. For heaven's sake, I recognise many of my own early
mistakes in Rockoids, but I learned to write better.
But if *you* won't take heed of the advice being offered for free, many
others will. It's for them that Jim is making this effort. It's a pity
that you can't see that.
Helen
--
Helen, Gwynedd, Wales *** http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk
Now with added serious stuff (basic maths and how to be an NVQ assessor).
**Please delete the extra bit from e-mail address if replying by mail**
red_...@my-deja.com
I beg to differ. We've got claustrophobic, ophidiophobic, achluophobic
ex-SEAL hunting evidence of space aliens. I could have a lot of fun
with a character like that.
The character is fine. The handling of him needs work and what the
plot does remains to be seen. If I had to him to do, I think I'd give
him the first name "Chauncy."
Best,
Jim Macdonald
> --
> Teresa Nielsen Hayden
> Tor Books :: t...@panix.com
>
T Nielsen Hayden
>In article <8EA8B4825...@166.84.0.240>,
> t...@panix.com (T Nielsen Hayden) wrote:
>> ...this character needs all the help he can get.
>
>I beg to differ. We've got a claustrophobic, ophidiophobic, achluophobic
>ex-SEAL hunting evidence of space aliens. I could have a lot of fun
>with a character like that.
Yes, and I could have a lot of fun with twenty pounds of wet clay, a variable-
control spinning wheelhead, a bucket of water, and a sponge; but in both cases
it's a cultivated ability.
Would you rather have fun, or prove (to no one's satisfaction but your own)
that you're right? I suspect you'd choose the former and Gene the latter. This
goes a long way toward explaining why you're a good SF writer and Gene isn't.
>The character is fine. The handling of him needs work and what the
>plot does remains to be seen. If I had to him to do, I think I'd give
>him the first name "Chauncy."
Chauncy's good.
Gene Steinberg
Hayden) wrote:
>If we can't tell, it's your fault.
No it's because you aren't paying attention. This is pretty well
telegraphed in the poster blurb at the site and also in Chapter 15, as
you'd realize it when you stop dissecting it word for word as if it were
a bible and actually read what was written.
James Kiley
>In article <gene-A071C2.0...@news.earthlink.net>, Gene
>Steinberg <ge...@rockoids.com> writes
>>
>>As to the page-by-page criticisms: Do the words "get a life" apply? I
>>think so.
>>
>And I think not. Many beginners (the sort who are keen to learn and
>improve) will learn a lot from Jim Macdonald's line by line critique.
>Critiquing very good stuff won't help a beginner.
Hear, hear. I'm getting more out of this crit than I have out
of all time time I've spent reading this group thus far.
Okay, that's an exaggeration, but this has been incredibly useful,
and I've sent Jim mail saying as much. I imagine I'm not alone,
and I imagine there are even more folks out there who are getting
a lot out of this who haven't mailed Jim to say so.
Gene: You could really get a lot of good out of this, if you'd
take your fingers out of your ears.
jk
or, uh, eyes; the analogy falls apart on usenet
Katy Mulvey
>In article <38641D40...@erols.com>, Brenda <clo...@erols.com>
>wrote:
>> Since the work is set more or less in
>>the present, a quick perusal of a phone book will turn up many surnames
>>commonly in use today.
>
>Aer you quite sure it's set more or less in the present?
From the summary of chapters 1-4:
... he was a victim of a strange accident during a secret
mission during the Gulf War, ...
And nothing in chapter 5 indicates in any way that the story is not
set in the present.
I for one am quite sure that it's set in the present, or at least
that Perkins is from the present.
And while you have a blurb that he travels to the future, that doesn't
affect his name, which is the point under discussion here.
The time-travel doesn't happen in the sample chapter in any case. At
least the part I read. The first few pages of the chapter didn't draw
me in. I skimmed over the story up to the point where Perkins gets in
the elevator, and just wasn't enjoying it, so I didn't read any further.
- Katy
T Nielsen Hayden
652D08.014...@news.earthlink.net>:
Tsk! If you want me to pay attention to Chapter 15, post Chapter 15. And don't
expect me to take my cues from blurbs and sales copy. Blurbs don't count. Only
the manuscript matters.
Gene Steinberg
<slrn86fci4.3vvl3mv...@teleman.aa2ys.ampr.org>,
kmulvey1...@rochester.rr.com (Katy Mulvey) wrote:
>The time-travel doesn't happen in the sample chapter in any case. At
>least the part I read. The first few pages of the chapter didn't draw
>me in. I skimmed over the story up to the point where Perkins gets in
>the elevator, and just wasn't enjoying it, so I didn't read any further.
>
Then your assumption is based on an incomplete examination of the facts.
Let's leave it at that :)
Gene Steinberg
<ken...@baradel.demon.co.uk.please.delete.this> wrote:
>But if *you* won't take heed of the advice being offered for free, many
>others will. It's for them that Jim is making this effort. It's a pity
>that you can't see that.
I know you wish to make it seems as of there is altruism involved, but
in fact there are other intentions that most people notice (not you
obviously).
Yes, I read the criticisms; I've seen good points here and there and
others that contradict those points. It's my decision what to accept and
what not to accept. What's so confusing about that.
Gene Steinberg
(James Kiley) wrote:
>Gene: You could really get a lot of good out of this, if you'd
>take your fingers out of your ears.
What I'm getting out of it is data for a fascinating psychological study
about one's attitudes and behavior and how folks are not aware of what
they are doing, even when they claim to have such insights.
Now if I wanted to be a psychologist, Usenet would be a great place for
research :)
Liz
Steinberg <ge...@macnightowl.com> writes
>In article <slrn86f4hd...@fnord.io.com>, ten...@fnord.io.com
>(James Kiley) wrote:
>
>>Gene: You could really get a lot of good out of this, if you'd
>>take your fingers out of your ears.
>
>What I'm getting out of it is data for a fascinating psychological study
>about one's attitudes and behavior and how folks are not aware of what
>they are doing, even when they claim to have such insights.
>
<snarf>
Just for a second there, I thought you might say, 'I'm hoping I'll learn
how to make my next book better'.
But then, I'm an optimist.
Liz
>Now if I wanted to be a psychologist, Usenet would be a great place for
>research :)
>
--
www.parents.org.uk - now live, with everything you need to know about parenting
L...@sff.net
www.sff.net/people/liz
Kristopher/EOS
>
> In article <slrn86f4hd...@fnord.io.com>,
> ten...@fnord.io.com (James Kiley) wrote:
>
>> Gene: You could really get a lot of good out of this,
>> if you'd take your fingers out of your ears.
>
> What I'm getting out of it is data for a fascinating
> psychological study about one's attitudes and behavior
> and how folks are not aware of what they are doing,
> even when they claim to have such insights.
This, coming from *you?*
I think you do this on purpose.
Kristopher/EOS
Gene Steinberg
wrote:
>Just for a second there, I thought you might say, 'I'm hoping I'll learn
>how to make my next book better'.
My next book and its sequel are already written.
I always hope to make them better, but I will, as I said before, have to
weigh the value of criticisms when they contradict one another. Sorry
that doesn't seem to penetrate.
T Nielsen Hayden
>In article <kxe2QWA5...@gila.demon.co.uk>, Liz <L...@sff.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Just for a second there, I thought you might say, 'I'm hoping I'll learn
>>how to make my next book better'.
>
>My next book and its sequel are already written.
I'm glad to hear your son is taking his writing so seriously.
red_...@my-deja.com
Para 0 (cont. from previous page) Sentence 4 Line 1
[I'm ... stupid!] Delete. Runs the risk of having the readers agree.
Redundant. The thought is contained in the previous action (slapping his
forehead).
Para 1 Sentence 1 Line 4
[Stupid ... for it!] Delete. The readers might agree. Redundant.
Unnecessary.
Para 2 Sentence 1 Line 5
[Perkins couldn't believe] Why not? The map has been completely
accurate so far.
Sentence 2 Line 7
[giving it a whirl.] Cliche. Is "whirl" the right image for pressing a
button?
Para 3 Sentence 1 Line 8
[And yet again,] Empty sounds, conveying no meaning, slowing the prose.
Delete. The sentence now starts "He."
Line 9-10
[quest- - for what?] Delete all after "quest." The quest is the
important plot point here, and should get end-of-sentence emphasis. "--
for what?" adds nothing that the audience needs. The readers are
following along for no other reason than to learn "for what?"
Paras 4-5
Should he be using a watch or stopwatch for the five-second count? This
seems to be an odd security arrangement. "Press the button, then after
a while press it again." Are ordinary but impatient visitors taken to
the new location? Should the instructions be "after exactly five
seconds"? Or perhaps "Press 1-1-2-B-2" or a similar sequence? Close up
these two paragraphs into one.
Para 6 Sentence 1 Line 14
[dutifully] Perkins seems to have a lot of duties. Is this the right
adjective? Is an adjective needed at all? Delete. Close up this
paragraph with paragraph 5.
Para 7 Sentence 1 Line 15
[brief second] Cliche. Seconds are all the same length; delete "brief."
The same thing goes for long hours: "Joe Character had worked many long
hours perfecting his frammistat..." Hours, minutes, and seconds,
generally don't need modifiers.
[For ... second] Wordy, and unnecessary. If a beat is needed here to
reflect the pause before the response by the elevator, consider "At
first."
Para 8 Sentence 1 Line 16
[Then] Another sentence beginning with a conjunction. Close up this
paragraph with the previous one.
Sentence 3 Line 17
[Clunk!] Delete the sound effect.
Sentence 5 Lines 17-19
[There was} is weak. Find a different verb, and rearrange this
sentence.
[Perkins thought ... happen.] Why does Perkins think this? If there's
no compelling reason for him to think so, delete this sentence.
Para 9 Sentence 1 Line 20
This one-sentence paragraph also begins with a conjunction. Close up
with the previous paragraph. Keep the thought together.
[all of a sudden] Cliche, adds no information, delete.
[did move.] Replace with "moved."
Para 10 Sentence 1 Line 21
Delete the entire paragraph. This information will come in Para 12.
Para 11 Sentence 1 Line 22
[The motion ... that] Delete. Perkins is the focus here, not the
motion.
[ground] Copyeditor error. Replace with "floor."
Line 23
[and for a ... balance.] Delete. This information is already contained
in "nearly fell"
Para 12 Sentence 1 Line 24
Replace the exclamation point with a period and close up with previous
paragraph.
Para 13 Sentence 1 Line 25
[startled, frightened, and] Delete. We should learn this from his
actions, not the narrator. Too many adjectives.
["alarm" bell] Isn't present. Poor copyediting. Not listed with the
buttons available Page 36 Para 7. This also strikes me as a reaction
that doesn't follow from his previous actions or character as described.
Either delete this, or add the button when the control panel is
described.
Sentence 2 Lines 26-28
[He knew ... him arrested.)]
Take out all parenthetical remarks. Set as description, dialog, or
delete entirely.
This sentence is a time-waster. Delete it in whole.
Sentence 3 Line 28
[However, ... then] Delete.
[stopped,] delete
[paused,] Remove coma.
What's the mechanism by which the elevator takes this path? Is it
cables, gears, hydraulics? Even if the mechanism isn't described to the
audience explicitly, the author needs to know it in order to make the
descriptions of the motion and the sounds that Perkins hears realistic
and consistent.
Paras 14-16
Delete. The byplay with the flashlight isn't advancing the plot.
Para 17 Sentence 1 Line 38
[And ... suddenly] Delete. The conjunction problem again, plus devoid
of important detail.
The reason authors include details is because they are important. The
details are necessary to build the scene, to reveal character, to
support theme. Any room in a house has thousands and thousands of
details that an author _could_ describe. The author needs to mention
the one or two that call up the room for the reader, and which the
reader will have a reasonable expectation of needing to know. If the
switchplates are two feet off the floor, only mention this if that fact
becomes important later. If it's a clue that a group of intelligent
cats live here, and that we're going to meet them, that's one thing. If
it's a clue that the builder misread the blueprints and we _never_ meet
him, then no, don't mention it.
Sentence 2 Line 39
[long, dark] Decide whether it's more important for the readers to know
if this tunnel is long or if it's dark, and delete the other adjective.
Para 18 Sentence 1 Line 40
[to himself.] There's no one else there; of course it's to himself.
Delete.
Why would he say this? He has a map which he's found to be completely
trustworthy, plus he knows the way he came. Does this fit his
character?
Sentence 2 (continues on page 38)
[He wondered ... next.] As do we all. Unnecessary. Delete this
sentence.
Next time ... page 38.
Richard Horton
>In article <kxe2QWA5...@gila.demon.co.uk>, Liz <L...@sff.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Just for a second there, I thought you might say, 'I'm hoping I'll learn
>>how to make my next book better'.
>
>My next book and its sequel are already written.
>
>I always hope to make them better, but I will, as I said before, have to
>weigh the value of criticisms when they contradict one another. Sorry
>that doesn't seem to penetrate.
You seem to value comments on the order of "Doooood! This really
rox!" as of higher value than a careful microcrit from an established
pro and writing teacher. That's your privilege. I don't personally
think it will help you improve, but what the hey? No one would mind
in the least if you had said basically that from the gitgo, instead of
jumping immediately to rudeness. Even the spamming would have been
forgotten, and people would probably have been willing to accept your
explanation that it was friends of your son. But you decided to
impugn Patricia's motives and professionality instead.
I don't know what you want out of the whole thing, and maybe you're
getting it. But I've got 1) exposure to a couple of excellent
microcrits and/or copy edits of a mediocre work, excellent examples of
ways to look at my work; 2) Jo's lovely fantasia on an alternate Gene
Steinberg; 3) Teresa's trenchant observations, valuable if for no
other reason than signalling her return, though valuable on their own
merits anyway; and 4) Jim Macdonald and others establishing to my
satisfaction that you or Grayson must have posted the original
messages, including the one from xorax, which demolished any last
thread of possible credibility you might have had, no great loss
perhaps as your own behavior had already blasted away you any
credibility you could have tried to claim.
Berry Kercheval
>... I've heard so much about that, but I missed it. If anyone has
> it saved, could they (please, please) email it to me?
I did it, so no one else needs to.
My new year's resolution is to post no more on this thread.
Liz
Steinberg <ge...@macnightowl.com> writes
>In article <kxe2QWA5...@gila.demon.co.uk>, Liz <L...@sff.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Just for a second there, I thought you might say, 'I'm hoping I'll learn
>>how to make my next book better'.
>
>My next book and its sequel are already written.
Shame. You stood to learn so much (and lord, don't you need to...)
>
>I always hope to make them better, but I will, as I said before, have to
>weigh the value of criticisms when they contradict one another. Sorry
>that doesn't seem to penetrate.
Here's a clue, Gene: you can _say_ it all you want; but when your
actions don't _show_ it, it's hard to make people believe it. This is
called 'show, don't tell'; it is an elementary writing technique.
Perhaps you've come across it?
Liz
Liz
<rrho...@prodigy.net> writes
>2) Jo's lovely fantasia on an alternate Gene
>Steinberg
Ahhh... I've heard so much about that, but I missed it. If anyone has
it saved, could they (please, please) email it to me? Yes, I know I
should go look it up on Deja, but my machine crashes after a few minutes
of web surfing, and with there being so many posts on this subject, I
doubt I'll ever find it...
Liz
>Sentence 2 (continues on page 38)
>[He wondered ... next.] As do we all. Unnecessary. Delete this
>sentence.
>
>Next time ... page 38.
I honestly cannot believe that there is nothing in all of this that Gene
thinks he can learn from. Why, the man must write like a veritable
angel... shame he didn't post those bits, though.
Gene Steinberg
(Richard Horton) wrote:
>You seem to value comments on the order of "Doooood! This really
>rox!" as of higher value than a careful microcrit from an established
>pro and writing teacher. That's your privilege. I don't personally
>think it will help you improve, but what the hey? No one would mind
>in the least if you had said basically that from the gitgo, instead of
>jumping immediately to rudeness. Even the spamming would have been
>forgotten, and people would probably have been willing to accept your
>explanation that it was friends of your son. But you decided to
>impugn Patricia's motives and professionality instead.
>
Here's the deal. Since Grayson and I did not post the messages referred
to, it doesn't matter to me what you believe.
I have been on the Net for years and I have never been accused of
spamming before for the simple reason most folks know better than to
make such silly accusations (because they would know how absurd it
is)...except for a few folks here, however.
As to my response to the criticisms: I pointed out from the get-go that
when folks say diametrically opposite things about what needs to be
fixed, you have to pick and choose.
I realize I stepped on a few sacred cows here by not bowing before the
gods of this newsgroup, but that's not my scene. I don't offer the novel
as anything more than a simple adventure story without literary
pretensions, never did.
Some will like it, some won't. Any written work by a human being can no
doubt be changed one way or the other. I will simply pick and choose.
This is no more than I've said already.
Lisa A Leutheuser
Berry Kercheval <be...@kerch.com> wrote:
>Liz <L...@gila.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>... I've heard so much about that, but I missed it. If anyone has
>> it saved, could they (please, please) email it to me?
>
Drat. This message arrived at my server *after* I sent a copy.
--
Lisa Leutheuser
eal (at) umich.edu
http://www.umich.edu/~eal
Jonathan W Hendry
> In article <84dp4q$8cb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, red_...@my-deja.com writes
>>[He wondered ... next.] As do we all. Unnecessary. Delete this
>>sentence.
>>
>>Next time ... page 38.
> I honestly cannot believe that there is nothing in all of this that Gene
> thinks he can learn from. Why, the man must write like a veritable
> angel... shame he didn't post those bits, though.
Maybe it's like one of those optical illusions.
If you stare at Rockoids for a long time, then look at a wall,
you'll see the good version as an afterimage.
Unfortunately, you'd probably have to stare at it until
after our sun goes nova.
Berry Kercheval
> In article <ohfh17...@jhereg.kerch.com>,
> Berry Kercheval <be...@kerch.com> wrote:
> >Liz <L...@gila.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >>... I've heard so much about that, but I missed it. If anyone has
> >> it saved, could they (please, please) email it to me?
> >
> >I did it, so no one else needs to.
>
> Drat. This message arrived at my server *after* I sent a copy.
Well, better that Liz get two copies than zero.
Terry L Jeffress
Gene Steinberg <ge...@macnightowl.com> wrote in message
news:gene-AC060A.0...@news.earthlink.net...
[snip redundand denials]
> Some will like it, some won't. Any written work by a human being can no
> doubt be changed one way or the other. I will simply pick and choose.
> This is no more than I've said already.
Because I have read the entire sample chapter, I feel qualified to say that
some will like it, *most* won't. You could postulate that for any given
work, you could find readers who will rate the book as the greatest they
have ever read. Proof: read the cover blurbs on most books. Our
capitalistic society provides the ultimate popularity poll -- books, and
authors, survive based on the number of people who vote with cash. I
hypothesize that *most* readers will not vote for _Rockoids._
Gene stated earlier that he doesn't read much fantasy. Based on the sample
chapter, I also conclude that Gene also hasn't read many spy, adventure, or
science fiction novels. Gene obviously does not have a sufficient
understanding of the genre protocols to produce a generally acceptably genre
novel. I admire any parent who invests in a child the amount of time
required to jointly complete a project as large as a novel -- or a series of
novels. To me, that makes _Rockoids_ valuable, but not sellable.
--
Terry L Jeffress
Pete McCutchen
>As a more general point, Perkins is possibly not a good name for an action
>hero. It is not a surname that connotes strength and will.
Unless it's an *unlikely* action hero. (Just the other day, my wife
and I were talking about why Arnold's movie _True Lies_ didn't work
for us. Part of it is that Arnold is so physically impressive that
it's difficult to believe that his wife really thought he was just a
computer salesman. I suggested that it would have been better with
Tom Hanks in Arnold's role.)
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
>Chapter Five: Page by Page
>
>This series of posts will deal with the sample chapter of _Attack of
>the Rockoids_ available in .pdf form at http://www.rockoids.com/
>
>People who aren't fascinated with the subject are requested to killfile
>this thread right now.
Gee, if I post some of my fiction on the Web and then make a big pain
in the ass of myself, will you do this for _me_?
--
Pete McCutchen
Brenda
Pete McCutchen wrote:
Very true.
Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough, author of HOW LIKE A GOD, from Tor Books
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
James Nicoll
Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Dec 1999 20:26:24 -0500, Brenda <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>>As a more general point, Perkins is possibly not a good name for an action
>>hero. It is not a surname that connotes strength and will.
>
>Unless it's an *unlikely* action hero. (Just the other day, my wife
>and I were talking about why Arnold's movie _True Lies_ didn't work
>for us. Part of it is that Arnold is so physically impressive that
>it's difficult to believe that his wife really thought he was just a
>computer salesman. I suggested that it would have been better with
>Tom Hanks in Arnold's role.)
>
I'd have liked to see Woody Allen in the Arnold role in _Total
Recall_.
James Nicoll
--
Liz
<e...@umich.edu> writes
>In article <ohfh17...@jhereg.kerch.com>,
>Berry Kercheval <be...@kerch.com> wrote:
>>Liz <L...@gila.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>... I've heard so much about that, but I missed it. If anyone has
>>> it saved, could they (please, please) email it to me?
>>
>>I did it, so no one else needs to.
>
>Drat. This message arrived at my server *after* I sent a copy.
>
>
Never mind, Lisa - I read it again when yours arrived, and it was just
as good the second time round.
Funny thing is, I actually found myself somewhat in sympathy with Jo's
version of Gene. Too bad it's fiction.
Liz
<jhe...@ux1.depaul.edu> writes
>Liz <L...@gila.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <84dp4q$8cb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, red_...@my-deja.com writes
>>>[He wondered ... next.] As do we all. Unnecessary. Delete this
>>>sentence.
>>>
>>>Next time ... page 38.
>
>
>> thinks he can learn from. Why, the man must write like a veritable
>> angel... shame he didn't post those bits, though.
>
>Maybe it's like one of those optical illusions.
>
>If you stare at Rockoids for a long time, then look at a wall,
>you'll see the good version as an afterimage.
>
>Unfortunately, you'd probably have to stare at it until
>after our sun goes nova.
<snarf>
Bad Jonathan. _Bad_ Jonathan!
Liz
<p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> writes
Line forms down the hall...
Gene Steinberg
<tjef...@altavista.net> wrote:
>Gene stated earlier that he doesn't read much fantasy. Based on the sample
>chapter, I also conclude that Gene also hasn't read many spy, adventure, or
>science fiction novels.
You'd be wrong.
--
Peace,
Gene Steinberg
Co-author, "Attack of the Rockoids"
http://www.rockoids.com
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>>Unless it's an *unlikely* action hero. (Just the other day, my wife
>>and I were talking about why Arnold's movie _True Lies_ didn't work
>>for us. Part of it is that Arnold is so physically impressive that
>>it's difficult to believe that his wife really thought he was just a
>>computer salesman. I suggested that it would have been better with
>>Tom Hanks in Arnold's role.)
>>
> Hee Hee. What about Steve Buscemi? Or even Bill Paxton?
Bill Paxton, maybe. The reason I picked Hanks is that he has a sort
of Jimmy Stewart earnestness. I think that he'd work really well in a
film that used a similar dynamic as _The Man Who Knew Too Much_.
>
> I'd have liked to see Woody Allen in the Arnold role in _Total
>Recall_.
I said _unlikely_ action hero, not _impossible_ action hero.
--
Pete McCutchen
Nancy Lebovitz
>In article <386b...@news.depaul.edu>, Jonathan W Hendry
><jhe...@ux1.depaul.edu> writes
>>Liz <L...@gila.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In article <84dp4q$8cb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, red_...@my-deja.com writes
>>>>Sentence 2 (continues on page 38)
>>>>[He wondered ... next.] As do we all. Unnecessary. Delete this
>>>>sentence.
>>>>
>>>>Next time ... page 38.
>>
>>
>>> I honestly cannot believe that there is nothing in all of this that Gene
>>> thinks he can learn from. Why, the man must write like a veritable
>>> angel... shame he didn't post those bits, though.
>>
>>Maybe it's like one of those optical illusions.
>>
>>If you stare at Rockoids for a long time, then look at a wall,
>>you'll see the good version as an afterimage.
>>
>>Unfortunately, you'd probably have to stare at it until
>>after our sun goes nova.
>
><snarf>
>
>Bad Jonathan. _Bad_ Jonathan!
>
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com
October '99 calligraphic button catalogue available by email!
Berry Kercheval
> Funny thing is, I actually found myself somewhat in sympathy with Jo's
> version of Gene. Too bad it's fiction.
What is truth?
We all sit her like the folks in Plato's cave, and the shadows on the
cave wall are our postings. For many of us, that's all we know about
each other.
So we invent stories. I have a picture in my mind of Liz, of Jo, Of
Pat, of Graydon, of Teresa. What they're like, where they live, and
so on. But I know that most of it is an invention. I can't help it,
it's the way people are. We fill in the blanks. It's one of our
traits that makes fiction work.
Many of us had an image of Gene that we had built up from his
postings. It wasn't very nice. Then Jo came along with an alternate
picture that we could sympathize with. At that time, our inner
pictures of Gene were in turmoil. At least, mine was. It was an
opportunity to put out the flames, shake hands, and go on with a new
understanding and a new friend.
Instead Gene came back with a metaphorical can of gasoline, fed the
flames, and we -- or at least I -- sighed, shrugged, and killfiled
him.
Too bad.
--berry
(This is my last post directly on the subject; if I reply in these
threads again it will be on a side conversation.)
James Nicoll
red_...@my-deja.com
Para 0 Line 1 already deleted from page 37.
Para 1 Sentence 1 Line 2
[But then again] Empty syllables, slow action, add no information.
Paragraph starts with conjunction. Delete. Sentence now
starts "Level."
[at the bottom of] Unclear. Replace with "buried beneath" or "on the
lowest level of." Consider "far underground."
Sentence 2 Line 3
[just might] Delete "just." Adds a syllable without adding information.
Line 4
[directly to] Delete "directly."
[bodies - - ... of course.] Delete all from the em-dash to "course."
Sentence now ends "bodies."
If there aren't any alien bodies this is going to be a very short book.
Sentence 3 Lines 5-6
[silly] Delete.
[terrible] Delete.
The audience needs to form their own opinions on whether the adventure
is silly or the dreams terrible, based on what they see and hear, not
on what the narrator tells them.
The exclamation point needs to go.
Best course: Delete sentences 3 and 4, Llines 5-7.
Para 2 Lines 8-12
Why is the ceiling so low here? Is this an important detail, or is it
just to add one more thing to Perkins' hardships? Why is it necessary
that he keep a "steady pace"? How did the troops who built the place
and the ones who work here go through? If the size of the tunnel isn't
important to the plot, to the character, or the theme, delete this
entire paragraph. It serves only to slow the action without adding to
the drama.
Para 3 Sentence 2 Lines 14-15
[At the same time... erect comfortably.] Since paragraph 2 was
deleted, delete this sentence too.
Sentence 3 Line 17
[rather dim] As compared to what? Delete "rather."
Sentence 4 Lines 17-18
A "curved hall" can't go "on and on" with "no end in sight." The curve
will limit vision. Rethink this passage. Which is more important:
that it's long or that it's curved? Delete the other part of the
description.
Find the important details. Use important details only. Unimportant
details burden the reader.
Para 4 Sentence 1 Line 19
[Finally,] Delete "Finally."
[just stood there] Just stood where? Replace with "just stood in the
hall."
[a couple of] Replace with "the"
Line 20
[those neck exercises] Which neck exercises? Delete "those."
[guru] Is this the right word to describe a martial arts instructor?
Check to see if "sensei" might be better.
Line 22
[the security detail] Which security detail? Replace "the" with "a."
Sentence 3 Line 23
[But he couldn't help but] Delete the first "But." Sentence now
begins "He."
Sentence 4 Line 25
[Now, ... explain.] No harder than being present at all. Adds nothing
except syllables, wastes time. Delete.
Para 5 Sentence 1 Line 26
[At this point,] Delete. Timewaster. Of _course_ it was at that
point, or it would have been described either earlier or later in the
narrative. Sentence now begins "He."
[a faint trace] How is this different from "a trace"? The readers
aren't going to imagine anything different either way. "Faint" is
padding.
Sentence 2 Line 28
[after he ... dreams] Delete "had those weird." The audience should
reach this conclusion from the description. Show, don't tell.
Replace "dreams" with "dreamed."
Sentence 3 Line 29
[slightly resembled] What does it resemble more? "Slightly" adds no
information to the readers to help them imagine the scene.
Sentence 4 Lines 30-31
[mysterious] Delete.
[awful enemy] Delete.
Sentence 5 Line 31
[It was hard ... odor.] Delete. Obviously - - he's remembering it
here, and has smelled it afterward his dreams.
Sentence 6 Line 31
[It had] Replace with "The odor had."
Line 32
[glowing] Delete. Most lights glow.
Line 33
[(at the time)] Delete parenthetical expression.
Were there enemy aircraft visible in the Gulf War? I'd been under the
impression that Iraqi aircraft were grounded early.
Rewrite paragraph to make less passive.
Para 6 Sentence 1 Line 34
[Ah, he now remembered] Rewrite to read "He remembered." Remove empty
syllables and timewasters.
Sentence 2 Line 35
[they] Antecedent unclear. Substitute "the dreams."
Line 37
[same time ... sounds.] Delete from "and he" through "sounds."
Sentence now ends "time." No information not already covered
by "clear" earlier in the sentence.
Sentence 4
[well known] Delete.
Sentence 5
[But right now ... this mess.] This is entirely true. He _doesn't_
have time right now to waste on thinking about the exposition. At the
very least delete this sentence so that the audience isn't reminded of
the fact that this is a narrative lump. Best solution is to work this
into dialog later, if it needs to be brought up at all.
Sentence 6 Line 1 Page 39
[He was here ... skin.] Obvious, cliche, and unnecessary. Delete
this sentence.
Next time ... page 39
Gene Steinberg
wrote:
>Here's a clue, Gene: you can _say_ it all you want; but when your
>actions don't _show_ it, it's hard to make people believe it. This is
>called 'show, don't tell'; it is an elementary writing technique.
>Perhaps you've come across it?
Yes, it's one you don't seem to understand.
My actions simply show that I won't let people like you stop me from
posting, regardless of the silly nature of your accusations.
Pete McCutchen
Nicoll) wrote:
>>> I'd have liked to see Woody Allen in the Arnold role in _Total
>>>Recall_.
>>
>>I said _unlikely_ action hero, not _impossible_ action hero.
>>
> It's all a dream after he goes to the dream retailers.
Oh, sure. But we're not supposed to figure that out until the end.
Besides, Verhoeven blew it, by having scenes not in the Arnold POV.
--
Pete McCutchen
Cally Soukup
> Chapter Five: Page 37
> Sentence 2 Line 39
> [long, dark] Decide whether it's more important for the readers to know
> if this tunnel is long or if it's dark, and delete the other adjective.
How can he tell *what* the elevator is opening on to, anyway? The
elevator was pitch black, and now he's looking at a "long, dark"
tunnel. Is there any light at all, or does he have sonar? Even if
there is a little light (from where? He's deep underground) his eyes
haven't had a chance to adjust from the abrupt loss of the light from
the burnt-out elevator bulb. Maybe he's looking at the tunnel by
teeny little light on his digital watch? Oh, wait -- he doesn't have
a digital watch or he would have used it to time the elevator button
presses.
--
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it." -- Beatrice Hall
Cally Soukup sou...@pobox.com
Liz
Steinberg <ge...@macnightowl.com> writes
>In article <TzjbABBP...@gila.demon.co.uk>, Liz <L...@sff.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Here's a clue, Gene: you can _say_ it all you want; but when your
>>actions don't _show_ it, it's hard to make people believe it. This is
>>called 'show, don't tell'; it is an elementary writing technique.
>>Perhaps you've come across it?
>
>Yes, it's one you don't seem to understand.
Oh, I think I understand it well enough.
I'll tell you what: I'll post my entire bibliography (fiction, non-
fiction, editing, copy-editing, web content, stuff done under
pseudonyms... heck, I'll even include the first story I had published,
for which I didn't get paid, and which is so dreadful it hurts to think
about it, _and_ tell people where they can get a copy so they can laugh
at me for it) IF you'll publish yours.
>
>My actions simply show that I won't let people like you stop me from
>posting, regardless of the silly nature of your accusations.
No, dear, your actions simply show that you haven't understood a word
that's been said to you.
Judith Rau
Gene Steinberg schrieb:
[snip]
> As to my response to the criticisms: I pointed out from the get-go that
> when folks say diametrically opposite things about what needs to be
> fixed, you have to pick and choose.
Ok, I really did not want to participate in this
endless thread. But I finally have to respond to
this mantra.
Yes, you do have to choose, but you have to be
careful, how you do this. I am in a situation that
maybe a bit like yours, though I lack non-fiction
credentials.
I am a beginner. I make those kinds of mistakes
beginners are prone to make. I am grateful for any
micro-crit I can get, maybe not even for the work
it has actually been applied to but for its
general value. Maybe I disagree with an advise in
the very place it was put at, but I'll remember it
for future use.
Sometimes crits sting and it takes time to get to
the point where you can appreciate them (though
non of the actual detailed crits on Rockoids had a
sting to them IMHO). And if crits are
contradicting each other they still might be a
sign that the given text did not work and the
people who did the crits offer different solutions
to the problem instead of contradicting each
other.
If what you mean to be contradicting is praise
against suggestion, than I would not call the
process
choosing. Praise is fine, but it has nothing to
offer to improve our writing and it does not
consume as much time as a valid critique,
definitely. I look at praise and feel good for a
moment, I look at a ripping critique after my
emotions cooled down and I (hopefully) take
advantages from it for the rest of my (writing)
life. That's the big difference IMHO.
> [snip]
> I don't offer the novel
> as anything more than a simple adventure story without literary
> pretensions, never did.
>
That was the line that had me jumping in, finally.
This is no question of literary pretensions, it is
a question of craft. You know, down here the most
successful SF-Magazine is a space opera, no
scientific value, no literary "value" but to
entertain with a adventurous neverending tale, but
still
-- even though I don't like the way these things
are written -- the difference to Rockoids is that
you see all those trespassing the rules of "good"
writing is done on purpose for a certain well
defined audience.
Sure, in this pulp nearly every nome has at least
one adjective, the most seldom used speech tag is
"said", but this is what their audience is
expecting, this is what the authors do on
_purpose_ and you see it. I never had the feeling
reading one of those that the authors did not know
what they were doing, I'm afraid I had that
feeling more than once when I read your sample.
You see, in a weird way, I am grateful for this.
It offered me the opportunity to learn from the
micro-crits on your sample -- and I learned a lot.
What I just don't understand is that you dismiss
all the advice offered not only for Rockoids but
for your next works as well.
To all those helpful people around here:
I'd like to thank everybody for the crits they
offer. That's one of the reasons I'm
lurking here. There is so much to learn from you!
Happy New Year to everybody and sorry for the
ranting.
[snip]
JJ
--
Times carved / Into years gone by / And those to
come / Millennia ending /
By the second /
PWrede6492
<rp1...@mail.online-club.de> writes:
>This is no question of literary pretensions; it is
>a question of craft.
That sums it up very nicely, I think.
Patricia C. Wrede
red_...@my-deja.com
Lines 1-2 already deleted.
Para 1 Sentence 1 Lines 3-4
[Again ... consciousness.] Some backstory actually seems to be
emerging, and it isn't too badly done, other than being in a one-
sentence paragraph beginning with an unnecessary "Again" and ending
with the clunky phrase "impinged itself on his consciousness."
Rewrite this sentence completely.
Para 2 Sentence 1 Line 5
[in a shallower fashion] Replace with "more shallowly."
Odors don't generally have effects. Should "odor" be replaced
with "gas"?
[but it grew worse] Unclear antecedent. Does "it" refer to the odor or
the odor's effect? Clarify.
[dark, curved] Both adjectives are unnecessary, repeating an earlier
description. Delete.
Sentence 2 Lines 7-9
[He considered ... there.] Delete.
Para 3 Sentence 1 Line 10
[The very idea ... ridiculous!] Too true. Best not to remind the
audience. In any case, since the idea has been deleted, delete this
one-sentence paragraph as well.
Para 4 Sentence 1 Line 11
[soon] Delete.
Lines 11-12
[couldn't ... and he] Delete.
Line 13
[...] Delete elipses. (The exclamation point has already been replaced
with a period.)
Para 5 Sentences 1-3 Lines 14-15
[Oh, no! ... to this?] Delete. But this does bring up a serious
question: What is the point of having all these elevators and halls?
How is the plot being advanced? How is theme being supported? How is
character being revealed? Answer: None of those things are being
done. This series of events doesn't belong in this novel.
Para 6 Sentence 1 Line 16
[cocked his ears] Cliche.
Line 17
[dark, dank] At least one too many adjective. How is this hallway
dank? At the very least, delete that inappropriate modifier. Consider
deleting both.
Para 7 Sentence 1 Line 18
[But there was] Weak opening to a single-sentence paragraph.
Substitute "He heard" and close up with the previous paragraph.
Para 8 Sentence 1 Line 19
[And] Begins the paragraph with a conjunction. Delete. Paragraph now
starts "The."
[old] Delete. Makes no difference to the scene.
Human traffic as opposed to what?
Para 10 Sentence 1 Line 23
[Oh ... hell!] Delete.
The security guards didn't design the base. Delete this entire
paragraph.
Para 11 Sentence 1 Line 25
[almost] Delete. How does one go about marching _almost_ like a
soldier? Does one do it by marching like a sailor? By marching like a
high school band member? A modifier that subtracts meaning rather than
adding meaning.
[army soldier] Delete "army." As opposed to what?
Line 26
[large red button] Is it more important that the button be large or
that it be red? Why is either important?
Para 13 Sentence 1 Line 29
Close up with previous paragraph.
Para 14
Close up with previous paragraph.
Sentence 1 Line 31
[the engraved] Substitute "its engraved."
[label] End the sentence after "label."
[and at the bottom he] New sentence begins "At the bottom of the list
he."
The exclamation point has already been replaced.
:
Sentence 2 Lines 31-32
[Strange ... clearly.] Why is it strange? Delete this sentence.
Para 15 Sentence 1 Line 33
[After ... joke.] Delete. (What is "almost a sick joke"? Is it a
queasy joke?) He hasn't been through all that much tonight, and an
accurate label in a place where it is likely to be seems hardly to
warrant this sort of reaction.
Para 16 Sentences 1-4 Lines 34-39
[He braced ... stop with a start!] Much as I like the image of
something stopping with a start (after presumably starting with a
stop), this paragraph adds nothing new, and adds it with cliches ("held
on for dear life"), wordiness, and over-alliteration. The simple trick
of the author reading the book out loud to himself might have helped
with fixing some of these problems, both here and elsewhere in the
chapter.
Para 17 Sentence 1 Line 40
[But ...gone.] Another paragraph starts with a conjunction. Remove
it. More alliteration (on P), and no reason why there would have been
the odor in the passageway but not in the elevator, or what that might
have meant. Rewrite, and close with previous paragraph.
This entire sequence, beginning on page 35, slows the work without
providing a reward for the reader. It seems padded because it is:
Nothing new happens, and that nothing takes four pages to fail to
unfold.
The impression given should be that getting to the secret lab is
difficult. The repetition of elevators is merely boring.
Best to collapse all of the elevators into one. One way to do that is
this: Perkins arrives at the first elevator. He summons the elevator
by punching in a set of numbers, given on his map. The elevator
appears ordinary. When he taps the elevator buttons in a coded
sequence, again given on his map, and the plain three-button elevator
panel slides aside to reveal the true elevator panel. He presses the
button for S4 on the newly revealed panel, and he's on his way.
Delete all, page 35 line 40 to page 39 line 39, and rewrite concisely
following the scheme I just laid out.
Next time .... page 40.
James Nicoll
But timed them so that I'd be in the theatre john when they
happened. That's practically the same as not having them.
--
red_...@my-deja.com
Para 0 Line 1
Already deleted.
Para 1 Sentence 1 Line 2
[how long he had traveled.] Unclear. Since when? Rewrite to "how far
he had descended."
Sentences 3-5 Lines 3-6
[He wondered ... from somewhere.] Taken from dialog in the film
_Independence Day_, where it was similarly used to describe the
financing of a secret lab in Area 51. Derivative. Delete.
Para 2 Sentence 1 Line 7
[fleeting moment,] Cliche. Delte "fleeting." Delete comma.
Sentence 2 Lines 9-10
[He found ... to resist.] Wordy, slow. Rewrite. "He closed his eyes."
Para 3 Sentence 1 Line 11
[But] Paragraph starts with conjunction. Delete "But." Sentence now
begins with "After." The conjunctions merely add a beat without adding
information. Empty sounds.
Line 11
[seemed almost interminable] Compare with the "seemed" in Line 2.
Delete one of these seemings.
Sentence 2 Lines 12-13
[as he emerged] Did he open his eyes before or after he left the
elevator? Clarify.
Sentence 3 Line 13
[almost] What is "almost like" a "huge fish tank"? How is it different
from "like a huge fish tank"? Delete "almost," or find the noun that
means the kind of thing it is.
Sentence 4 Line 14
[They ... glow.] How does one go about lighting something with a glow?
Rather, the tanks are glowing. Try "An orange-white glow came from
them."
Para 4 Sentence 1 Line 15
[just]
Sentence 2 Line 16
[just] Repetition of "just." Rewrite to remove one "just."
Line 17
[else] Delete. Adds no information, slows and dilutes the scene.
Para 5 Sentence 2 Line 21
[an expert ... work.] An unusual image. Well done.
Para 6 Sentence 1 Line 22
[seemingly] Another seeming. Delete this entire clause. Close up this
paragraph with the previous one.
Sentence 2 Line 23
[They] Unclear antecedent. What's being talked about, the entire
creatures or their arms and legs? Rewrite. Clarify.
[something more!] Something? What? Does the author know? If so,
describe. Don't make the readers guess. The exclamation mark doesn't
belong. Fortunately, it was already deleted.
Para 7 Sentence 1 Line 25
[But] Another paragraph beginning with "But." Delete.
[it was] Weak. Rewrite with more active verb.
[Perkins now] Delete "now." Adds no information.
[who] CE error. Replace with "what."
[were!] The exclamation point has gone away.
Para 8 Sentence 1 Line 26
Close up with previous paragraph.
Actually the name "Rockoids" doesn't ring like a bell. It clanks. The
only way to salvage this is to make clear that "Rockoids" isn't the
name that these aliens give themselves, nor is it the name that Perkins
gives them, but rather is the name that an editor at the game company
for which he writes his computer games insisted they be called.
Perkins eventually resigned himself to the name, and now that's how he
thinks of these creatures.
The exclamation point in line 28 is replaced with a period.
Para 9 Sentence 1 Line 29
[just] Another "just." Delete it. Empty syllable.
[couldn't believe his eyes.] Why not? Cliche. Delete whole sentence.
Sentence 2 Line 30
[had depicted,] CE error. Should read "had depicted them,"
[very] Empty syllable. Slows descrition without adding to it. Delete.
Sentence 3 Line 31
[down his]] As opposed to "slow up"? Delete "down."
[rapid] Adds no new information. If he's trying to slow his breathing
of course it's rapid.
[himself down] Delete this "down" as well. Same reason.
Line 32
[down to the floor] Delete this "down" too.
[torrents ... body.] Sentence ends after "torrents." Delete "from ...
body."
Sentence 5 Line 34
[now] Delete. As opposed to "then"? Unnecessary.
Line 35
[his eyes] Delete. It's difficult to concentrate one's eyes on sounds,
as he'll be doing by the end of this sentence.
Para 10 Sentence 1 Line 37
[There were] Weak opening for a sentence, let alone a paragraph.
Delete. Recast the sentence with a more active verb.
Find one or two concrete, specific details, and describe them. This
sentence is too diffuse. "All sorts"? What kinds? What does
a "strange-looking chemical" look like? This is vague and poorly
conceived. What is a "futuristic-looking machine"? Split into several
sentences. We are finally arriving at the point of this chapter.
Reward the reader for getting here.
Sentence 2 Line 39
[stepped back] Delete "back."
[and tried to avoid] Rewrite "...as he tried to avoid..." Which "non-
glowing control panel"? If it wasn't glowing, what _was_ it doing?
Page 41
Sentence 1 Lines 1-2
[They were ... moment.] How do they look like they might come alive?
Clarify or delete.
This entire paragraph needs to be rewritten and clarified. Two ideas
are jammed into it: The appearance of the lab, and the appearance of
the Rockoids. Split into two paragraphs, or delete the Rockoids (who,
after all, already had a paragraph of their own).
Next time ... page 41.
T Nielsen Hayden
<8EA9AD93C...@166.84.0.240>:
>ge...@macnightowl.com (Gene Steinberg) wrote in <gene-
>652D08.014...@news.earthlink.net>:
>
>>In article <8EA8A24DC...@166.84.0.240>, t...@panix.com (T Nielsen
>>Hayden) wrote:
>>
>>>If we can't tell, it's your fault.
>>
>>No it's because you aren't paying attention. This is pretty well
>>telegraphed in the poster blurb at the site and also in Chapter 15, as
>>you'd realize it when you stop dissecting it word for word as if it were
>>a bible and actually read what was written.
>
>Tsk! If you want me to pay attention to Chapter 15, post Chapter 15. And don't
>expect me to take my cues from blurbs and sales copy. Blurbs don't count. Only
>the manuscript matters.
No reply, Gene?
--
Teresa Nielsen Hayden
Tor Books :: t...@panix.com
T Nielsen Hayden
>In article <slrn86f4hd...@fnord.io.com>, ten...@fnord.io.com
>(James Kiley) wrote:
>
>>Gene: You could really get a lot of good out of this, if you'd
>>take your fingers out of your ears.
>
>What I'm getting out of it is data for a fascinating psychological study
>about one's attitudes and behavior and how folks are not aware of what
>they are doing, even when they claim to have such insights.
>
>Now if I wanted to be a psychologist, Usenet would be a great place for
>research :)
Jo, have you ever thought of writing a song about this ploy? I swear I've
seen it as often as I've seen the "lurkers support me in e-mail" gambit.
T Nielsen Hayden
>In article
><slrn86fci4.3vvl3mv...@teleman.aa2ys.ampr.org>,
>kmulvey1...@rochester.rr.com (Katy Mulvey) wrote:
>
>>The time-travel doesn't happen in the sample chapter in any case. At
>>least the part I read. The first few pages of the chapter didn't draw
>>me in. I skimmed over the story up to the point where Perkins gets in
>>the elevator, and just wasn't enjoying it, so I didn't read any further.
>
>Then your assumption is based on an incomplete examination of the facts.
>Let's leave it at that :)
Let's not. Others got the same impression from closely reading every word you
posted. Her assumption was therefore based on a sufficient examination of the
facts.
Here's one of the two or three most basic rules of writing: If you're not
getting the reaction you want out of your readers, if they're not understanding
what you meant for them to understand, then you're in the wrong. It's your
fault. You need to fix it. Period. Otherwise you're like a washout comedian
protesting that his jokes and delivery were funny, and that the audience was at
fault because they failed to laugh.
T Nielsen Hayden
-A00FC9.011...@news.earthlink.net>:
>In article <84g290$dhl$1...@news.aros.net>, "Terry L Jeffress"
><tjef...@altavista.net> wrote:
>
>>Gene stated earlier that he doesn't read much fantasy. Based on the
>>sample chapter, I also conclude that Gene also hasn't read many spy,
>>adventure, or science fiction novels.
>
>You'd be wrong.
Too bad for you, then.
T Nielsen Hayden
>In article <38718e3c...@news.prodigy.net>, rrho...@prodigy.net
>(Richard Horton) wrote:
>
>>You seem to value comments on the order of "Doooood! This really
>>rox!" as of higher value than a careful microcrit from an established
>>pro and writing teacher. That's your privilege. I don't personally
>>think it will help you improve, but what the hey? No one would mind
>>in the least if you had said basically that from the gitgo, instead of
>>jumping immediately to rudeness. Even the spamming would have been
>>forgotten, and people would probably have been willing to accept your
>>explanation that it was friends of your son. But you decided to
>>impugn Patricia's motives and professionality instead.
>
>Here's the deal. Since Grayson and I did not post the messages referred
>to, it doesn't matter to me what you believe.
>
>I have been on the Net for years and I have never been accused of
>spamming before for the simple reason most folks know better than to
>make such silly accusations (because they would know how absurd it
>is)...except for a few folks here, however.
More than a few folks here have found you objectionable.
I find no prior evidence of people specifically calling you a spammer, so
perhaps the recent instance is your first. But you do have an interesting
history. For instance, there's a whole website at www.aolwatch.org/gene.htm
about your rudeness and the other participants' frustration with you during the
"AOL Sucks" flamewars. There's also a huge thread containing remarkably similar
comments by you and about you in rec.audio.opinion. (For a sample, try Alan
Derrida <derr...@cam.org>, 1997/02/01, subject "When did YOU realize Gene
Steinberg is a liar?")
The reaction we've had to you here replicates the reactions you've gotten in
other venues. You are not being misunderstood or arbitrarily mistreated. Your
behavior is at fault.
T Nielsen Hayden
<386b...@news.depaul.edu>:
>Maybe it's like one of those optical illusions.
>
>If you stare at Rockoids for a long time, then look at a wall,
>you'll see the good version as an afterimage.
Believe it or not, there's at least one published author whose text works
like that. Actually, it's more like one of those scrambly-patterned pages
where if you stare at them long enough you suddenly see three-dimensional
shapes. The prose isn't complex, but the sentences are glitched -- and I
don't just mean grammar and spelling. But if you stare at them long enough,
you'll suddenly see the sentences they were supposed to be. It's a weird
effect. Takes a great deal of copyediting, but the author's a pretty fair
storyteller so it's worth the extra work.
Graydon
> Here's one of the two or three most basic rules of writing: If
> you're not getting the reaction you want out of your readers, if
> they're not understanding what you meant for them to understand,
> then you're in the wrong. It's your fault. You need to fix it.
> Period. Otherwise you're like a washout comedian protesting that his
> jokes and delivery were funny, and that the audience was at fault
> because they failed to laugh.
A couple years ago, Leahy, who are a folk band/family (12 kids? 10 of
whom are a band, something like that), were playing Nathan Phillips
Square in Toronto, and all the published stuff said 'starts at 20h00'.
Being that it was a Canadian folk music audience involved, it actually
showed up at a 20h00, to discover that the arts council sorts who were
planning this particular public concert had schedule a couple of hours
of standup commedians before the actual Leahy concert.
The result was what is known as a 'tough audience' -- not so much as a
giggle, obvious impatience for the comedian to get off the stage, and
such things as people playing cards on top of their cooler until the
actual _show_ started.
The second time one of the commedians remarked what a tough audience
this was, several people started throwing pennies on to the stage.
Since then, I've felt that having to revise sentences perhaps isn't so
bad after all.
--
and he sat down on the burning sand | angantyr@
looked at the red on his brown right hand | sympatico.ca
and he spoke to the Devil about his plans | *new address*
out to the East of Eden. -- Shriekback, "The Bastard Sons of Enoch"
red_...@my-deja.com
Para 0 Lines 1-2
Dealt with together with page 40. Either rewrite for clarity or delete.
Para 1 Sentence 1 Line 3
[Get] CE error. Lowercase "g" in "get."
Line 4
[before ... you!] Delete this clause. This shouldn't be Perkins'
biggest problem right now. Repeats material already covred. Sentence
ends after "here."
Para 2 Sentence 1 Line 5
[Unfortunately,] The degree of fortune needs to come from the readers'
reactions. There's little excuse for using this word outside of
dialog. Empty syllables. Delete. Sentence now starts "Perkins."
Sentence 2 Line 7
[that awful, gaseous] Change "that" to "the." Delete comma.
Delete "gaseous."
Line 8
[only ... was] delete phrase.
Sentence 3 Lines 8-9
[was ... guard and] Delete. Adds nothing to the description. We
should be able to tell his level of preparedness from his actions and
reactions.
[so dizzy that] Delete "so." Sentence ends after "dizzy."
Delete "that." Next sentence begins "He."
Line 10
[one of ... machines.] Which one of the machines? Now is the time for
detailed description.
The entire paragraph needs to be rewritten. Something to the effect
of "Perkins walked around the tanks, examining the Rockoids from every
angle. The smell that he associated with the aliens in his dreams grew
stronger as he concentrated on their bodies. How had they died? He
didn't notice any wounds on them. Not until swirling yellow gas
obscured the view did he notice that the room was filling with vapor.
He looked over his shoulder. The gas was pouring from the ventillation
system. The smell got worse, choking him and making him dizzy."
The machine is now part of the following paragraph, as we finish the
thought about the gas in this paragraph.
Para 3 Sentence 1 Line 11
[and then suddenly,] Is one action at the same time as the other, or
does it follow the other? Choose either "and" or "then" appropriately,
and delete the other word. Delete "suddenly,"
Lines 12-13
[several ... colors] Which colors? Specify.
[pattern.] Describe the pattern if it is important. Otherwise delete.
The readers want a picture here, not a do-it-yourself kit.
Sentence 2 Line 12
[Suddenly,] Delete "Suddenly." Sentence now starts "He."
Para 4 Sentence 1 Lines 14-15
[really dizzy] Delete. The "really" is unnecessary, since there's no
difference for the readers betweeen "dizzy" and "really
dizzy." "Dizzy" is unnecessary since it repeats information already
given in line 9.
Rewrite to smooth the sentence.
Sentence 2 Line 15
[Finally, ... struggling] Show, don't tell. Either show the struggle,
or delete this phrase. Sentence now starts "He."
Line 16
[unconsciousness] Does unconsciousness come in waves? Try "nausea."
Line 17
[him and] Delete "and." End sentence after "him." Next sentence
begins "He hurried."
Para 5 Sentence 1 Line 18
[However,] Empty syllables. Delete. Sentence now begins "As soon."
Close up this paragraph with the preceeding one.
Para 6 Sentence 1 Line 20
["Oh ... closing!"] Replace dialog with description: "The elevator
doors were closing."
[he ... self.] Of course he said it to himself; no one else is there.
Delete the dialog tag. Close up this paragraph with the preceeding.
Para 7 Sentence 1 Line 21
[faster and ... closing door.] Sentence ends after first "faster."
Delete "and ... door."
Sentence 2 Line 23
[crack] Replace with "gap." Same error as on page 34.
[closed .. clang.] Sentence ends with "closed." Delete "with ...
clang."
Para 8 Sentence 1 Line 24
Close up with previous paragraph. Replace exclamation point with
period. Exclamation points belong in dialog, and are only rarely
necessary.
Para 9 Sentence 1 Line 25
[Now] Delete. Sentence starts "The terror." Empty syllable.
Line 26
[cough out loud] Delete "out loud." Is cough the right word? Consider
choke, gasp, or gag.
[strange] Delete "strange." The audience is aware that it's unusual.
Sentence 2 Line 27
[was thick] Add "so" between "was" and "thick."
[him, and] Replace "and" with "that."
Sentence 3 Line 28
[intense odor] Replace with "gas."
[weakened him,] Replace comma with period. Sentence ends here. Next
sentence starts "He found."
Sentence 4 Line 29
[or two] Delete. The author needs to state explictly the time
interval. Either "within a minute" or "within two minutes."
Line 30
[dizzy] Repetition of "dizzy" adds nothing. Is this the right word?
Lines 30-31
[so ... fight it.] Delete. Sentence ends with "die."
Para 10
[He wondered ... the gas.] Doesn't he know what kind of air the
Rockoids breathe from his dreams? The yellow color and the smell
should be giveaways. Rewrite to clarify.
Para 11
[As he ... broken glass.] Failure of tone. The mood of the scene goes
from tense to slapstick. Either delete or rewrite. At this stage of
the writing process, deleting it might be better. Shorten it in any
case.
Next time ... page 42
T Nielsen Hayden
<3v9n6sg8sc3sj5fck...@4ax.com>:
>On Wed, 22 Dec 1999 16:27:32 GMT, red_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>Chapter Five: Page by Page
>>
>>This series of posts will deal with the sample chapter of _Attack of
>>the Rockoids_ available in .pdf form at http://www.rockoids.com/
>>
>>People who aren't fascinated with the subject are requested to killfile
>>this thread right now.
>
>Gee, if I post some of my fiction on the Web and then make a big pain
>in the ass of myself, will you do this for _me_?
Going to one of his teaching sessions has got to be easier. Note that I'm
not promoting any specific venue or occasion. Good thing there's more than
one of them.
T Nielsen Hayden
>Chapter Five: Page 39
(...)
>Line 26
>[large red button] Is it more important that the button be large or
>that it be red? Why is either important?
It's from the Evil Overlord List:
"If I ever become an Evil Overlord, I will not include a
self-destruct mechanism unless absolutely necessary. If it
is necessary, it will not be a large red button labelled
'Danger: Do Not Push'."
(...)
>This entire sequence, beginning on page 35, slows the work without
>providing a reward for the reader. It seems padded because it is:
>Nothing new happens, and that nothing takes four pages to fail to
>unfold.
>
>The impression given should be that getting to the secret lab is
>difficult. The repetition of elevators is merely boring.
>
>Best to collapse all of the elevators into one. One way to do that is
>this: Perkins arrives at the first elevator. He summons the elevator
>by punching in a set of numbers, given on his map. The elevator
>appears ordinary. When he taps the elevator buttons in a coded
>sequence, again given on his map, and the plain three-button elevator
>panel slides aside to reveal the true elevator panel. He presses the
>button for S4 on the newly revealed panel, and he's on his way.
>
>Delete all, page 35 line 40 to page 39 line 39, and rewrite concisely
>following the scheme I just laid out.
You left out the part about how he's to bring it to your room first thing
tomorrow morning so you can go over it before classes start.
Richard Horton
On Mon, 03 Jan 2000 18:25:44 GMT, Graydon <anga...@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
>The second time one of the commedians remarked what a tough audience
>this was, several people started throwing pennies on to the stage.
At least then they were getting paid for their trouble.
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.sfsite.com/tangent)
Karen Lofstrom
Gene:
:>What I'm getting out of it is data for a fascinating psychological study
:>about one's attitudes and behavior and how folks are not aware of what
:>they are doing, even when they claim to have such insights.
T Nielsen Hayden:
: Jo, have you ever thought of writing a song about this ploy? I swear I've
: seen it as often as I've seen the "lurkers support me in e-mail" gambit.
Someone who projects his values and attitudes onto others, then when
the others call him on it, he says: "There you go, projecting again."
It's the PeeWee Herman defense. No matter what you say, he says, "I
know you are, now what am I?"
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Cthulhu vs. a bunch of Nazis? Oh, I am sure *our* side would win hands
down!" -- Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew
David Goldfarb
Graydon <anga...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
)The second time one of the commedians remarked what a tough audience
)this was, several people started throwing pennies on to the stage.
Why on earth would they do that? I have the feeling I'm missing
a cultural reference here.
--
David Goldfarb <*>|"What do you want? In the depths of your
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |ignorance, what do you want? Because whatever
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu |it is, I can't give it to you."
aste...@slip.net | -- The Brain, as Morden; Babylon 5, "Yes, Always"
Gene Steinberg
Hayden) wrote:
>The reaction we've had to you here replicates the reactions you've gotten
>in
>other venues. You are not being misunderstood or arbitrarily mistreated.
>Your
>behavior is at fault.
Let's provide some real facts here.
The aol sucks crowd put up a Web page about me when I asked them to stop
sending me threatening email and had some of them lose their ISP
accounts as a result (note the letter from me they quote as an example)?
Now maybe you approve of sending threatening email, but most folks will
complain when it happens.
As to the audio forums, there used to be a real crazy dude named Derrida
who posted there. He attacked everyone and anyone who held a so-called
"motherhood and Apple pie" viewpoint of the audio industry, that
traditional science and engineering was responsible for the achievements
in the industry and that the laws of physics were not violated.
Now maybe you prefer to align yourself with AOL haters and with the
so-called "tweak" element of audio who attack anyone who holds a
contrary point of view (even noted some scientists in the latter case),
but you aren't doing very much for your credibility.
Gene Steinberg
Hayden) wrote:
>
>No reply, Gene?
The blurb gives you a summary of what the book is about, the
introduction (which this person has ignored) sets the stage for the
events in Chapter 15.
Get the picture now?
Gene Steinberg
Hayden) wrote:
>
>Here's one of the two or three most basic rules of writing: If you're not
>getting the reaction you want out of your readers, if they're not
>understanding
>what you meant for them to understand, then you're in the wrong. It's your
>fault. You need to fix it. Period. Otherwise you're like a washout
>comedian
>protesting that his jokes and delivery were funny, and that the audience
>was at
>fault because they failed to laugh.
We are getting a very good reaction from our readers.
Graydon
> In article <84qpv0$siv$1...@localhost.localdomain>,
> Graydon <anga...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> )The second time one of the commedians remarked what a tough audience
> )this was, several people started throwing pennies on to the stage.
[would people who think ) is a cute quote character please stop? It
messes up the syntax highlighting something chronic. So does using :
as a quote character.]
> Why on earth would they do that? I have the feeling I'm missing
> a cultural reference here.
The idea is that the comic is only still standing up there in the
hopes of getting paid, so it's simultaneously 'go away now' and 'you
can hope for maybe eleven cents an hour and that's more than you
deserve'.
T Nielsen Hayden
>In article <8EB07A5CF...@166.84.0.240>, t...@panix.com (T Nielsen
>Hayden) wrote:
>
>>
>>No reply, Gene?
>
>The blurb gives you a summary of what the book is about, the
>introduction (which this person has ignored) sets the stage for the
>events in Chapter 15.
>
>Get the picture now?
No, and that's still your fault. For the benefit of anyone else who's
trying to get the picture, here's what you snipped:
>Days and days ago, t...@panix.com (T Nielsen Hayden) wrote in
><8EA9AD93C...@166.84.0.240>:
>
>>ge...@macnightowl.com (Gene Steinberg) wrote in <gene-
>>652D08.014...@news.earthlink.net>:
>>
>>>In article <8EA8A24DC...@166.84.0.240>, t...@panix.com (T Nielsen
>>>Hayden) wrote:
>>>
>>>>If we can't tell, it's your fault.
>>>
>>>No it's because you aren't paying attention. This is pretty well
>>>telegraphed in the poster blurb at the site and also in Chapter 15, as
>>>you'd realize it when you stop dissecting it word for word as if it
>>>were a bible and actually read what was written.
>>
>>Tsk! If you want me to pay attention to Chapter 15, post Chapter 15.
>>And don't expect me to take my cues from blurbs and sales copy. Blurbs
>>don't count. Only the manuscript matters.
>
>No reply, Gene?
--
T Nielsen Hayden
<84srbf$kgm$1...@localhost.localdomain>:
>David Goldfarb <gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> scripsit:
>> In article <84qpv0$siv$1...@localhost.localdomain>,
>> Graydon <anga...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> )The second time one of the comedians remarked what a tough audience
>> )this was, several people started throwing pennies on to the stage.
>
>> Why on earth would they do that? I have the feeling I'm missing
>> a cultural reference here.
>
>The idea is that the comic is only still standing up there in the
>hopes of getting paid, so it's simultaneously 'go away now' and 'you
>can hope for maybe eleven cents an hour and that's more than you
>deserve'.
It's also a cheap, lightweight projectile that comes easily to hand.
T Nielsen Hayden
>In article <8EB08D19F...@166.84.0.240>, t...@panix.com (T Nielsen
Nice try, Gene, but I've read the text.
Liz
Steinberg <ge...@macnightowl.com> writes
>In article <8EB077990...@166.84.0.240>, t...@panix.com (T Nielsen
>
>>
>>Here's one of the two or three most basic rules of writing: If you're not
>>getting the reaction you want out of your readers, if they're not
>>understanding
>>what you meant for them to understand, then you're in the wrong. It's your
>>fault. You need to fix it. Period. Otherwise you're like a washout
>>comedian
>>protesting that his jokes and delivery were funny, and that the audience
>>was at
>>fault because they failed to laugh.
>
>
>We are getting a very good reaction from our readers.
What I find bizarre about this is that they're all _there_ and _none_ of
them are here. I can't remember _one person_ posting here to say that
they enjoyed Rockoids. Now, I can understand a few people not wanting to
get involved... but you'd think, with all the lurkers out there, _one_
person, at least, would have written _something_ to say that they liked
it.
But no.
Somehow, _all_ the people who like it have written directly to Gene, and
_none_ of them have posted here.
How... odd.
Liz
--
www.parents.org.uk - now live, with everything you need to know about parenting
L...@sff.net
www.sff.net/people/liz
Helen Kenyon
>
>Para 3 Sentence 1 Line 11
>does it follow the other? Choose either "and" or "then" appropriately,
>and delete the other word. Delete "suddenly,"
>Sentence 2 Line 12
>[Suddenly,] Delete "Suddenly." Sentence now starts "He."
>
The original 10 year old version of the WIP was peppered with
"suddenly"s. I broke myself of the habit, during the re-write, by
setting the auto-correct on Word to say DON'T USE SUDDENLY every time I
typed the word.
Helen
--
Helen, Gwynedd, Wales *** http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk
Now with added serious stuff (basic maths and how to be an NVQ assessor).
**Please delete the extra bit from e-mail address if replying by mail**
Helen Kenyon
<L...@gila.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>But no.
>
>Somehow, _all_ the people who like it have written directly to Gene, and
>_none_ of them have posted here.
>
>How... odd.
>
>Liz
>
>
round the Narn bat squad to do them over for stepping out of line.
Oops... Sorry, wrong group.
Lisa A Leutheuser
You've mentioned Viable Paradise here. Where are the others?
--
Lisa Leutheuser
eal (at) umich.edu
http://www.umich.edu/~eal
Gene Steinberg
wrote:
>
>Somehow, _all_ the people who like it have written directly to Gene, and
>_none_ of them have posted here
Actually one person did, but you folks accused that person of being me
in disguise. That does not provide a welcome environment for folks to
say something nice about the subject.
People just don't want to be trashed just for being honest about
something that is against the opinion of others in this hostile
atmosphere.
Gene Steinberg
Hayden) wrote:
>Nice try, Gene, but I've read the text.
Then you know I am telling you the truth. You can see, for example, that
the Derrida messages are hate-filled attacks against a variety of
people, some of whom are well known scientists.
And if you had read the aol hater messages fully, you'd realize that
they are in the business of attacking anyone who has expressed regular
support for AOL. I have run several forums on AOL, and written books
about them, so that makes me one of their main targets (there are plenty
of others on the Web site you refer to).
Etaoin Shrdlu
"T Nielsen Hayden"
> >Maybe it's like one of those optical illusions.
> >
> >If you stare at Rockoids for a long time, then look at a wall,
> >you'll see the good version as an afterimage.
>
> Believe it or not, there's at least one published author whose text works
> like that. Actually, it's more like one of those scrambly-patterned pages
> where if you stare at them long enough you suddenly see three-dimensional
> shapes. The prose isn't complex, but the sentences are glitched -- and I
> don't just mean grammar and spelling. But if you stare at them long
enough,
> you'll suddenly see the sentences they were supposed to be. It's a weird
> effect. Takes a great deal of copyediting, but the author's a pretty fair
> storyteller so it's worth the extra work.
> Tor Books :: t...@panix.com
Who is it? It sounds like something I'd like to read--I read a lot of
Pynchon and Joyce and so forth, and really, really like effective language
play, especially the sort of holographic effects of Ulysses or V.
--Katrina
T Nielsen Hayden
<84tgj0$ikv$3...@news1.xs4all.nl>:
>Who is it? It sounds like something I'd like to read--I read a lot of
>Pynchon and Joyce and so forth, and really, really like effective language
>play, especially the sort of holographic effects of Ulysses or V.
Sorry. What it turns into is very conventional prose. That property of the
original manuscript version is mostly interesting to text-wranglers. Also, it
wouldn't be proper for me to identify the author.
--
Teresa Nielsen Hayden
Pete McCutchen
>>Gee, if I post some of my fiction on the Web and then make a big pain
>>in the ass of myself, will you do this for _me_?
>
>Going to one of his teaching sessions has got to be easier. Note that I'm
>not promoting any specific venue or occasion. Good thing there's more than
>one of them.
What is the venue you are not promoting?
And what are the others? (Or where may one find information about
these venues?)
--
Pete McCutchen
Liz
<ken...@baradel.demon.co.uk.please.delete.this> writes
>In article <84r57j$rlk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, red_...@my-deja.com writes
>>
>>Para 3 Sentence 1 Line 11
>>[and then suddenly,] Is one action at the same time as the other, or
>>does it follow the other? Choose either "and" or "then" appropriately,
>>and delete the other word. Delete "suddenly,"
>
>
>>Sentence 2 Line 12
>>[Suddenly,] Delete "Suddenly." Sentence now starts "He."
>>
>The original 10 year old version of the WIP was peppered with
>"suddenly"s. I broke myself of the habit, during the re-write, by
>setting the auto-correct on Word to say DON'T USE SUDDENLY every time I
>typed the word.
>
>Helen
Oh, I love this, Helen! I'm going to have to remember this as a tip for
the next class I teach.