<i>I can report that
at least one person I trust says it's got all your standard
first-novel problems and isn't very good.</i>
And I was wondering, what are these problems? The only one I can
think of is the 'kitchen sink' problem, where every cool idea the
author's ever had shows up in one book, but I'm sure there's more.
Are there any sfnal specific first novel problems?
Mary-Sue-ism, probably, in which the author models her*
protagonist on herself* and paints her* much larger than life.
E.g.,
http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20051212
Deus ex machina is also a possibility....
____
*Or if masculine, it's a "Barry Stu."
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djh...@kithrup.com
> *Or if masculine, it's a "Barry Stu."
I've usually seen "Marty Stu", actually.
Another common first author mistake is "overkill" in the background.
Sort of related to the Kitchen Sink problem, the author in this case is
afraid that the reader may miss some aspect of the background the author
thinks is important, and ends up with thousands of words of infodump and
As You Know Bobbing that turn out not to be really needed.
Some first authors have the opposite problem: things that are obvious
to them, they assume are obvious to the reader, and thus critical,
need-to-know information... isn't there.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Oh yes. This is sometimes blamed on Tolkien, particularly when
the infodump appears in a foreword. But really, Tolkien's
foreword consists chiefly of three elements: background information
about Hobbits (for those who didn't read _The Hobbit), a summary
of the plot of _The Hobbit_ (ditto) and some academic digressions
about the various ancient manuscripts in which the tales occur.
The important backstory is given later, in Chapter Two, with no
AYKB because Frodo *doesn't* know any of it.
It's possible to do both in the same story -- over-explaining your
hero's genealogy while neglecting to mention why the sun is green, or
whatever.
Other issues: Scenes that do nothing to advance plot or develop
character, but are there because the author thinks they're cool.
Failure to make minor characters out of anything better than low-grade
cardboard.
Plot "surprises" that were blindingly obvious in Chapter One.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
The ninth issue of the Hugo-nominated webzine Helix
is now at http://www.helixsf.com
Telling instead of showing, railroad plots, idiot plots, sloppy
scene changes, inconsistant internal chronology.
--
Konrad Gaertner - - - - - - - - - - - - email: kgae...@tx.rr.com
http://kgbooklog.livejournal.com/
"I don't mind hidden depths but I insist that there be a surface."
-- James Nicoll
> phd...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> And I was wondering, what are these problems? The only one I can
>> think of is the 'kitchen sink' problem, where every cool idea the
>> author's ever had shows up in one book, but I'm sure there's more.
>> Are there any sfnal specific first novel problems?
>
> Telling instead of showing, railroad plots, idiot plots, sloppy
> scene changes, inconsistant internal chronology.
What is a "railroad plot"? I'm unfamiliar with the term.
kdb
So Baen authors other than Bujold have written a lot of first novels.
> Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> > In article
> > <b3fb00d6-b38e-4f61...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> > <phd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I was reading one of the Locus First Novel threads, and LWE said:
> > >
> > > <i>I can report that
> > > at least one person I trust says it's got all your standard
> > > first-novel problems and isn't very good.</i>
> > >
> > > And I was wondering, what are these problems? The only one I can
> > > think of is the 'kitchen sink' problem, where every cool idea the
> > > author's ever had shows up in one book, but I'm sure there's more.
> > > Are there any sfnal specific first novel problems?
> >
> > Mary-Sue-ism, probably, in which the author models her*
> > protagonist on herself* and paints her* much larger than life.
> >
> > E.g., http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20051212
> >
> > Deus ex machina is also a possibility....
>
> > *Or if masculine, it's a "Barry Stu."
>
> I've usually seen "Marty Stu", actually.
I've also seen "Gary Stu."
>
> Another common first author mistake is "overkill" in the background.
> Sort of related to the Kitchen Sink problem, the author in this case
> is afraid that the reader may miss some aspect of the background the
> author thinks is important, and ends up with thousands of words of
> infodump and As You Know Bobbing that turn out not to be really
> needed.
>
> Some first authors have the opposite problem: things that are
> obvious to them, they assume are obvious to the reader, and thus
> critical, need-to-know information... isn't there.
The classic (among published novels) is Curme Gray's _Murder in
Millenium VI_. It's a future mystery in which nothing is explained
that wouldn't need to be explained to people of that time and place.
Nothing.
--
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers."
Tennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Expire
Journal http://dsgood.livejournal.com
Futures http://clerkfuturist.wordpress.com
mirror 1: http://dsgood.insanejournal.com
mirror 2: http://dsgood.wordpress.com
Links http://del.icio.us/dsgood
Shifting viewpoints, not quite omni, not quite multiple tight third.
Jacey
--
Jacey Bedford
jacey at artisan hyphen harmony dot com
posting via usenet and not googlegroups, ourdebate
or any other forum that reprints usenet posts as
though they were the forum's own
Its mainly a gaming term, but here it means the author knows what
plot events are going to happen, and characters either act out of
character or are not given any choices in the first place.
> >
> > Another common first author mistake is "overkill" in the background.
> > Sort of related to the Kitchen Sink problem, the author in this case
> > is afraid that the reader may miss some aspect of the background the
> > author thinks is important, and ends up with thousands of words of
> > infodump and As You Know Bobbing that turn out not to be really
> > needed.
> >
> > Some first authors have the opposite problem: things that are
> > obvious to them, they assume are obvious to the reader, and thus
> > critical, need-to-know information... isn't there.
>
> The classic (among published novels) is Curme Gray's _Murder in
> Millenium VI_. It's a future mystery in which nothing is explained
> that wouldn't need to be explained to people of that time and place.
>
> Nothing.
>
I think this novel was mentioned before on rasfw. Is it any good, or is
it to be recalled only with a shudder?
--
Christopher J. Henrich
chen...@monmouth.com
htp://www.mathinteract.com
The characters do what the author trained them to do.
> What is a "railroad plot"? I'm unfamiliar with the term.
>
> kdb
I'm guessing "runs on rails," i.e. the author is determined to write a
certain story and isn't going to let anything -- plausibility,
characterization, the main idea being really stupid -- get in the way of
ploughing through to that ending.
> And I was wondering, what are these [first-novel] problems? The
> only one I can think of is the 'kitchen sink' problem, where every
> cool idea the author's ever had shows up in one book, but I'm sure
> there's more. Are there any sfnal specific first novel problems?
Take a look at the Turkey City Lexicon, slightly different (I think)
forms of which are at:
<http://www.sfwa.org/writing/turkeycity.html>
<http://w2.eff.org/Misc/Publications/Bruce_Sterling/paradigms_workshop_sterling.lexicon>
<http://www.critique.org/users/critters/turkeycity.html>
It's by no means the case that _only_ first novels contain the
problems listed therein, but they're probably a lot more prevalent
there than elsewhere.
And then there's the unrelated "first-novel" problem of plain old
experience, comma, lack of. The more a person writes, and gets
feedback from other readers, writers, editors, etc., the better they
(sometimes) get in terms of simple prose mechanics -- it can be as
simple as acquiring the ability to instinctively know when to
include "said Mary" in a conversation scene and when to leave it
out -- and the worse inexperienced writers' work look by comparison.
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Well, I read it very long ago -- and didn't understand it till I read
Damon Knight's review, some time afterwards.
As I recall, the prose was okay. Whether it made sense as a mystery is
another matter. If I recall correctly, the technology behind the
device which turned out to be the murder weapon, and its legitimate
use, weren't explained.
If a member of a society whose members were all parthonogenic females
(and had never heard of male humans), and which didn't have cities,
automobiles, or money, were to read a Nero Wolfe novel, would she be
able to judge its writing quality?
[...]
> Another common first author mistake is "overkill" in the background.
> Sort of related to the Kitchen Sink problem, the author in this case is
> afraid that the reader may miss some aspect of the background the author
> thinks is important, and ends up with thousands of words of infodump and
> As You Know Bobbing that turn out not to be really needed.
When I was slumming around a remaindered book store I found a SF noval
that suffered from something simmler. Our author lavished great
detail on describing a scout master's unform down to his gortex shoe
uppers. And then spent a single line to tell us about his near miss
with a meteor.
I'm not sure this is a "first novel" problem, but it certainly is an
SF novel problem": writers who don't understand the science they are
writing about. Alas such problems don't seem to prevent authors from
writing second novels.
If you can find it again, that quote sounds worth forwarding to Dave
Langford's Ansible for inclusion in next month's Thog's Masterclass.
Jerry Brown
--
A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
> It's possible to do both in the same story -- over-explaining your
> hero's genealogy while neglecting to mention why the sun is green, or
> whatever.
(T Guy):
On all these things - I merely quote you above as an example - as
someone said in a film: 'They have a cat called the editor for that.'
Mind you, they don't seem to have bothered with one on _The DaVinci
Code_, so...
T Guy
All the stuff about the Stoors and Fallohides is original to the
foreword, and rather important as it sets up the Smeagol backstory.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
Events in the past may be roughly divided into those which probably
never happened and those which do not matter.
-W.R. Inge
"Only to the extent of defining a term so that Gandalf could say
"Much later, but still very long ago, there lived some little
people near the river ... I think they were akin to the fathers
of the fathers of the Stoors." But if he hadn't mentioned the
three founding strains of Hobbits (who, by the way, correspond to
the three founding strains of Englishmen: Angles, Saxons, and
Jutes), he could simply have said "They were of hobbit-kind," and
Frodo would still have objected strenuously once Gandalf
identified Smeagol as Gollum.
On the other hand ... The Lord of the Rings Online is now in its
second year, and you can, if you wish, create a Hobbit character,
and then you get to choose whether your Hobbit comes of the
Fallohides, the Harfoots, or the Stoors, and you'll have a range
of physical characteristics, depending on your choice.
>Christopher Henrich wrote:
>> In article <486e7a7c$0$90342$8046...@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com>,
>> "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> > The classic (among published novels) is Curme Gray's _Murder in
>> > Millenium VI_. It's a future mystery in which nothing is explained
>> > that wouldn't need to be explained to people of that time and place.
>> >
>> > Nothing.
>>
>> I think this novel was mentioned before on rasfw. Is it any good, or
>> is it to be recalled only with a shudder?
>Well, I read it very long ago -- and didn't understand it till I read
>Damon Knight's review, some time afterwards.
*Wow*. Someone who's actually seen it. I had started to get
the idea that the references to _Murder In Millennium VI_ were mostly
cribbing from Damon Knight's essay about it and that it had a great
reputation despite nobody since Knight having read it. (I see that
Wikipedia claims the original printing was 2500 copies, in 1951, which
if true explains why I never see it in the used book stores around me.)
>As I recall, the prose was okay. Whether it made sense as a mystery is
>another matter. If I recall correctly, the technology behind the
>device which turned out to be the murder weapon, and its legitimate
>use, weren't explained.
I suppose that a story making sense and a story having a
satisfying resolution are not particularly parallel traits. Given
that, though, was the resolution satisfying, so far as you remember?
>If a member of a society whose members were all parthonogenic females
>(and had never heard of male humans), and which didn't have cities,
>automobiles, or money, were to read a Nero Wolfe novel, would she be
>able to judge its writing quality?
Would they be able to warm up on the Wendell Urth stories
as practice runs?
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> writes:
>
> > Christopher Henrich wrote:
>
> >> In article <486e7a7c$0$90342$8046...@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com>,
> >> "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> >> > The classic (among published novels) is Curme Gray's _Murder in
> >> > Millenium VI_. It's a future mystery in which nothing is
> explained >> > that wouldn't need to be explained to people of that
> time and place. >> >
> >> > Nothing.
> >>
> >> I think this novel was mentioned before on rasfw. Is it any good,
> or >> is it to be recalled only with a shudder?
>
> > Well, I read it very long ago -- and didn't understand it till I
> > read Damon Knight's review, some time afterwards.
>
> *Wow*. Someone who's actually seen it. I had started to get
> the idea that the references to _Murder In Millennium VI_ were mostly
> cribbing from Damon Knight's essay about it and that it had a great
> reputation despite nobody since Knight having read it. (I see that
> Wikipedia claims the original printing was 2500 copies, in 1951,
> which if true explains why I never see it in the used book stores
> around me.)
It's quite possible that Knight and I were the only people who
_finished_ it. I suspect there were other reviewers who read a bit of
it and decided there was no point in reviewing it.
>
> > As I recall, the prose was okay. Whether it made sense as a
> > mystery is another matter. If I recall correctly, the technology
> > behind the device which turned out to be the murder weapon, and its
> > legitimate use, weren't explained.
>
> I suppose that a story making sense and a story having a
> satisfying resolution are not particularly parallel traits. Given
> that, though, was the resolution satisfying, so far as you remember?
The culprit was found. Certain problems in the society were
alleviated. So I guess I would say yes.
>
> > If a member of a society whose members were all parthonogenic
> > females (and had never heard of male humans), and which didn't have
> > cities, automobiles, or money, were to read a Nero Wolfe novel,
> > would she be able to judge its writing quality?
>
> Would they be able to warm up on the Wendell Urth stories
> as practice runs?
--
[...]
>>When I was slumming around a remaindered book store I found a SF noval
>>that suffered from something simmler. Our author lavished great
>>detail on describing a scout master's unform down to his gortex shoe
>>uppers. And then spent a single line to tell us about his near miss
>>with a meteor.
>
> If you can find it again, that quote sounds worth forwarding to Dave
> Langford's Ansible for inclusion in next month's Thog's Masterclass.
It is "Limbo II The Final Chapter" by Andy Secombe
Nilbert Plymstock, eighteen-year-old scout leader, third grade, killed
the engine and clambered down onto the damp, mossy ground. Under a
lowering grey sky, the vast, empty expanse of Dartmoor brooded
menacingly. 'We'll camp here' he shouted back to the party of thin,
whey-faced boys huddled shivering, in the back of the Land-Rover.
Nilbert filled his lungs, and his nostrils whistled tunelessly. It
was beginning to rain, but a cold shower couldn't dampen Nilbert's
spirits, even though, from the Gor-tex uppers of his boots to the
turn-ups of his oversized khaki shorts, his thin, stick legs where
blue-mottled with cold. He ripped open his rucksack and pulled out a
bar of Cadbury's Wholenut and a small carton of chocolate milk. 'Ah,
it's good to be alive,' he said. 'There is nothing, absolutely
nothing better than being a scout. It's more than a way of life, it's
a vocation.'
At that moment, a walnut-sized meteorite zipped past his nose and
slammed into the ground between his boots. In the shocked silence
that followed, Nilbert looked down at the three-foot-deep crater that
had suddenly appeared at his feet, and felt the still-smouldering,
fist-sized hole in the broad brim of his Baden-Powell official-issue,
pack-leader's hat, and decided to do something more useful with his life.
#####
The rest of the noval is no better. There is no cliche left unused,
no plot twist left untelegraphed and few sentences unmolested by the
collar splice.
It's a really common failing. I'm pretty certain that every published
author has written at least one.
--
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
(Bene Gesserit)
> It's a really common failing. I'm pretty certain that every published
> author has written at least one.
Allen Dean Foster and Eric Flint have written scores.
--
What is done in the heat of battle is (normatively) judged
by different standards than what is leisurely planned in
comfortable conference rooms.
> At that moment, a walnut-sized meteorite zipped past his nose and
> slammed into the ground between his boots.
He must've been wearing an omelet . . . .
--
"The math is easy," said Chaos.
< _Thief of Time_
As a first time novelist, I can tell you the mistakes I made. Not
all of them related to just the writing. Someone on here made a point
that the minor characters have to have some depth to them. No
cardboard people, that was a good suggestion.
A good editor is a must if it is your first novel. He or she can
save you, or sink you. Have patience, as my book was rejected by
several houses in six months, I self-published. That is almost the
kiss of death. It infers that no publisher would bother to publish
your work. I was severely chastised on here for my lack of patience.
One woman told me that it took her four years to have her book
accepted. But, as the publishers help with advertising, getting your
book into the larger book chains, it has it's merits. Advertising is
no cheap matter, and you need all the help you can get.
Your readers have to idenify with your main character, and in order
not to make him like you, you observe people, in airports, hotels,
resturants, and make notes when you see someone that looks
interesting. It will make it easier to come up with the characters
you need. I made my main mistake in self-publishing, as I was
inpatient, then the advertising was in my ballpark with me the only
player. Those are the mistakes I made in my first novel, and they
were costly mistakes. So take it from one who has been there. Dorothy
J. Heydt on here is also someone to listen to, she is kind to first
timers, and will give you straight information. Good luck, Ken Hogan
One, I don't mind. When most of their output tells instead of shows,
then I mind.
> A good editor is a must if it is your first novel. He or she can
> save you, or sink you. Have patience, as my book was rejected by
> several houses in six months, I self-published. That is almost the
> kiss of death. It infers that no publisher would bother to publish
> your work. I was severely chastised on here for my lack of patience.
As far as I can tell you've never considered the alternate explanation:
that your novel wasn't bought because people don't want to pay money to
read it.
There's no shame in that. Most people who like playing chess will never
be Grand Masters. Most people who like playing baseball will never be in
the Major Leagues. Most people who took drama in college will never be
professional actors. Most people who like politics will never be
Congressmen, Senators, or President.
I make those comparisons for a reason. It's not just that those fields
have a similar attrition rate to writing fiction (ratio of people who try
vs. people who succeed). It's also that in all those fields, responding
to an initial failure by trying much, much harder generally doesn't work.
Infinite willpower and refusal to give up aren't going to get you into
professional baseball if you're 5'3" with bad knees. They just aren't. A
certain level of natural talent has to go along with all that hard work.
(People make the opposite mistake too, of course. "I have a real gift for
X. Now hand me my success, don't expect me to lift a finger toward it."
Fails for the same reason -- there are people out there with both talent
AND practice, more than enough of them to fill all available slots.)
Another thing about those fields I compare to fiction writing -- none of
them is The Only Way to Be A Successful Person. Nor is getting a novel
published. I suggest trying some alternate careers and hobbies.
>veritas <khog...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:be2cb4a3-4719-4ff1-931a-
>ea045e...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
>> A good editor is a must if it is your first novel. He or she can
>> save you, or sink you. Have patience, as my book was rejected by
>> several houses in six months, I self-published. That is almost the
>> kiss of death. It infers that no publisher would bother to publish
>> your work.
Implies, not infers.
>I make those comparisons for a reason. It's not just that those fields
>have a similar attrition rate to writing fiction (ratio of people who try
>vs. people who succeed). It's also that in all those fields, responding
>to an initial failure by trying much, much harder generally doesn't work.
>Infinite willpower and refusal to give up aren't going to get you into
>professional baseball if you're 5'3" with bad knees. They just aren't. A
>certain level of natural talent has to go along with all that hard work.
Yup.
Incidentally, I've used the baseball comparison in the past, and once
worked out that statistically, writing for a living is roughly
comparable in difficulty/rarity to playing in the Major Leagues.
Writing a major bestseller is roughly equivalent to winning the World
Series.
Not sure the numbers still hold up, as there have been major changes
in the publishing world since I worked it out.
The biggest difference is that baseball players tend to retire a lot
younger.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
The ninth issue of the Hugo-nominated webzine Helix
is now at http://www.helixsf.com
>On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 23:13:57 +0100, Jerry Brown <je...@jwbrown.co.uk.RemoveThisBitToReply> wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 10:11:24 GMT, "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)"
>><dfor...@usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>When I was slumming around a remaindered book store I found a SF noval
>>>that suffered from something simmler. Our author lavished great
>>>detail on describing a scout master's unform down to his gortex shoe
>>>uppers. And then spent a single line to tell us about his near miss
>>>with a meteor.
>>
>> If you can find it again, that quote sounds worth forwarding to Dave
>> Langford's Ansible for inclusion in next month's Thog's Masterclass.
>
>It is "Limbo II The Final Chapter" by Andy Secombe
<snip>
Thanks, David.
Forwarded to Ansible.
> The rest of the noval is no better. There is no cliche left unused,
> no plot twist left untelegraphed and few sentences unmolested by the
> collar splice.
What is a collar splice?
I did a Google search for the term, but only found it as craft-writing
terminology in your post. But it sounds rather specific, so I'm
interested in what it means.
kdb
>On 2008-07-07 05:48:53 -0700, "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)"
><dfor...@usyd.edu.au> said:
>
>> The rest of the noval is no better. There is no cliche left unused,
>> no plot twist left untelegraphed and few sentences unmolested by the
>> collar splice.
>
>What is a collar splice?
Sounds like a brainfart for comma splice.
That would be sadly mundane. "Collar splice" has so much promise!
Also, there are no comma splices in the fragment posted, unless you
count "It's more than a way of life, it's a vocation." At least not as
I understand them -- two independent clauses that could function as
sentences on their own, stitched together with a comma rather than a
semicolon.
There are commas aplenty, and sentences weighted down with too many
dependent clauses, but the clauses are either dependent, or use a
conjuction like "and."
kdb
> Also, there are no comma splices in the fragment posted, unless you
> count "It's more than a way of life, it's a vocation."
Why wouldn't you count that? It's practically the archetypal example of
the form.
Aaron
Because it's such an accepted use of the form, and not something many
people would flag as an example of a grammatically molested sentence.
But the main point was that it's the only one, so aside from it being a
fairly natural one, the rest of the fragment doesn't support the idea
that few sentences are free of commasplices.
kdb
Short, parallel, sentences joined by a comma are typically considered
grammatical.
Now, if you want to consider comma splices to not always be
ungrammatical, feel free, but I've only seen it used to describe the
unwieldy ones.
--
Aaron Denney
-><-
-JM
> On 2008-07-08, Aaron Bergman <aber...@physics.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > In article <2008070813412975249-kurt@busiekcomics>,
> > Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.comics> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Also, there are no comma splices in the fragment posted, unless you
> >> count "It's more than a way of life, it's a vocation."
> >
> > Why wouldn't you count that? It's practically the archetypal example of
> > the form.
>
> Short, parallel, sentences joined by a comma are typically considered
> grammatical.
Bah.
We have a semi-colon for a reason, dammit.
Aaron
> It is "Limbo II The Final Chapter" by Andy Secombe
[ ... ]
> The rest of the noval is no better. There is no cliche left
> unused, no plot twist left untelegraphed and few sentences
> unmolested by the collar splice.
But it _is_ sfnal, right?
-- wds
We have a semi-colon for a reason; dammit.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
>On Jul 7, 2:35=C2=A0pm, William George Ferguson <wmgfr...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 12:04:00 -0700 (PDT), Mark_Reich...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >On Jul 4, 1:18=EF=BF=BDpm, Konrad Gaertner <kgaert...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> phdu...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >> > And I was wondering, what are these problems? =EF=BF=BDThe only one =
>I can
>> >> > think of is the 'kitchen sink' problem, where every cool idea the
>> >> > author's ever had shows up in one book, but I'm sure there's more.
>> >> > Are there any sfnal specific first novel problems?
>>
>> >> Telling instead of showing
>>
>> >So Baen authors other than Bujold have written a lot of first novels.
>>
>> It's a really common failing. =C2=A0I'm pretty certain that every publish=
>ed
>> author has written at least one.
>>
>Let's not forget "said-bookism", poor grammer, wooden writing, the
>"Eight deadly words", implauisible and unmotivated characters,
>inconsistant characters, etc. Read Twain's 'Fenimore Cooper's Literary
>Offenses" for more.
Quite right. The grammer is offal.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
Save the Earth now!!
It's the only planet with chocolate.
One of the few times I can argue grammar with you, as infers means to
derive a conclusion from facts or premises (self-published). Implies
simply means to involve or indicate by inference. So infering is the
right word, implies is simply a way to the word. But whether infers,
or implies, the first words of criticism was almost always, "Well, you
had to self-publish I see.". It was always the first thing brought
up. That, and as you know, I really don't have either the
temperament, or the "touch" to handle book people. They do business
different then I am used to doing. I'm still glad I wrote it, as I
needed to do it. For a living? I don't think so, as I would need
that great editor. As you can plainly see, my grammar is not anywhere
near a professonial level, but the more you write, the better you
get. You might get there. It can also suck the life out you if you
do not get something back. I was on my way to being a grand master in
chess when I was much younger, then I noticed something strange. Even
the grand masters were not making money, so I gave that up early and
turned to my other businesses with much better pay. I don't think
I'll ever make a living in books either. It costs to much of my soul,
and I might well end up poor as a grand master. That, I don't need.
Regards, Ken Hogan
I would give you a logical argument to your points, but unfortunately,
there are none I can find. I still believe it to be a good readable
book, and the people who have read it have said it makes you think
about our origins. But you are right in everything you said, I have
long been successful in business, I own a couple and have had some
success, and the idea that I could not make the book a good one never
occurred to me. It has now, as I really don't have the temperament to
handle the business side of books. I sell books every month, but of
course not enough, that is why I said don't self-publish. Of all the
criticism I have gotten that was always the first thing said. "Well,
you had to self-publish it", and it was or seemed an automatic black
eye, and that was that. Everyone assumes that your book is not good
because of that. That may be exactly the case. Of course, no one who
has done so wants to believe that, but as I said, I have not a logical
point one to argue with your post. Regards, Ken Hogan
To show a little more of my first book ignorance, what is the Eight
Deadly Words? People have made reference a couple of times of them.
Could someone name them, just for us greenhorns? Regards, Ken Hogan
> To show a little more of my first book ignorance, what is the Eight
* Deadly Words?
Thank you sir, for you your kindness in pointing out the spot to
look. Yes, those most certainly are the Eight Deadly Words. I don't
believe mine has that trouble, but I'm sure none of the ones that get
them think the same. I didn't know the words used, but I have said
that myself quite a few times. You just don't care what happens to
them. I read "The Natural" and forced myself to finish it, even
though I really didn't care. Robert Redford turns it into a classic
movie, but the book is terrible, not worth turning the pages. Thank
you again for pointing out where to go to find the information.
Regards, Ken Hogan
Can you explain these two references? I've looked around on the likely
web sources, but couldn't find anything to my satisfaction.
John Eno
A character in DAVID COPPERFIELD was obsessed with King Charles' head,
and spends all his (infrequent) page time worrying about it and bringing
it into every conversation. It is accepted by all around him as one of
his foibles; the modern reader might suspect a mild OCD.
Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
Recent short fiction:
"A Mighty Fortress"
http://www.helixsf.com/archives/Jul07/index.htm
Thank you!
John Eno
> One of the few times I can argue grammar with you, as infers means to
> derive a conclusion from facts or premises (self-published). Implies
> simply means to involve or indicate by inference. So infering is the
> right word, implies is simply a way to the word.
To Infer is to engage in a process of inference, that is, a form of
logic (sometimes valid, sometimes not). It is, in tat regard, directly
parallel with "to think". One can no more say that "This newspapaer
article infers that X is true" than one can say
"This newspapaer article thinks that X is true". (Unless this is an
Sfnal world with sapient newspaper articles. But I digress.) One could
say "This newspapaer article leads *me* to infer that X is true."
Whereas "to imply" is, in effect, to provide evidence that might
plausibley lead someone else to infer something. Thus one can say
"This newspapaer article implies that X is true" meaning that it
contains statemetns that might plausibly lead a reder to so infer.
From this comes the sens of "imply" to mean "intimates" or "states non-
explicitly" or even "hint", becaue if any of those is being done, it
could lead the recipient to infer.
More historically, imply also comes from a desription of a logical
process, but described in terms of the propositions involved. In
logic, to say 'A implies B" is to say that given the truth of A, a
provable chain of logic forces any logical reasoner to accept B. So
"implies" is again a statement about statemetns, while "infers" is a
statement about thinkers
-JM
Or to put it more simply. If a writer says it in a statement, he's
implying. If a reader derives it from a statement, he's inferring.
Implying is uploading. Inferring is downloading.
kdb
Not a bad way of putting it in brief.
-JM
> On Jul 11, 12:26 pm, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.comics> wrote:
>> On 2008-07-11 09:18:22 -0700, johnmarks...@yahoo.com said:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> <SNIP>
>>> ... So
>>> "implies" is again a statement about statemetns, while "infers" is a
>>> statement about thinkers
>>
>> Or to put it more simply. If a writer says it in a statement, he's
>> implying. If a reader derives it from a statement, he's inferring.
>>
>> Implying is uploading. Inferring is downloading.
>
> Not a bad way of putting it in brief.
Although, just to be clearer, I should have said "If a writer suggests
it in a statement without actually saying it, he's implying. If a
reader derives it from a statement that doesn't actually say it, he's
inferring."
But it amounts to the same think. An implication is expressed, an
inference is received.
kdb
Now that is what I call a set of posts that make sense. This is how
it is supposed to work. One person questions, and the people with the
best language skills reply. I see the difference. That's nice. Ken
Hogan
So I'll just chalk it down to how, though show and not tell is generally
a good idea, it's kinda DANGEROUS to closely demonstrate how frustrating
it is to have things get worse and worse without being able to do
anything about it for more than a chapter or two. The reader may get
fed up and leave.
That was an interesting insight, as when I am reading a book, the
author never even occurs to me. It's like the book just sort of
appeared (boy, I found that wrong!) and if I didn't like it I ended
up putting it down, or skipping a couple of chapters, and seeing if it
got better, but the author never comes to mind, and I never think of
what it could have been, just what it is. There is a difference, you
think of how a book is written, and I think of is it interesting or
not. But not why, and with no thought of the author at all. Nice
post, I'll give that a try on the next book I read. I am rereading
"Red October" tonight, and how can you make that better? I still have
to look to see the author's name, and he is world famous. I need to
pay more attention I believe. Regards, and thanks, Ken Hogan
>
> That was an interesting insight, as when I am reading a book, the
> author never even occurs to me. It's like the book just sort of
> appeared (boy, I found that wrong!) and if I didn't like it I ended
> up putting it down, or skipping a couple of chapters, and seeing if it
> got better, but the author never comes to mind, and I never think of
> what it could have been, just what it is. There is a difference, you
> think of how a book is written, and I think of is it interesting or
> not. But not why, and with no thought of the author at all. Nice
> post, I'll give that a try on the next book I read. I am rereading
> "Red October" tonight, and how can you make that better? I still have
> to look to see the author's name, and he is world famous. I need to
> pay more attention I believe. Regards, and thanks, Ken Hogan
>
Not so much that I spend much time thinking of how a book is written
when the story is going well, it's more an indication of when something
sufficiently maladroit to dent my suspension of disbelief has occurred.
It's annoying; I shouldn't *have* to be thinking of the author.
From what's excerpted here, I would give the author the benefit of the
doubt and assume that this was an attempt at humor in a Douglas Adams
mode. Though not really a successful attempt.
The mistake I notice most often in attempted first novels that I've
critiqued is that the authors don't know that the indispensible tool
of the fiction writer is conflict. Characters have to struggle
constantly against other characters, against their environments, and
against themselves. No conflict, no story. In sf, there's always the
temptation to spend a lot of time explaining how stuff works, or how
things got be this way. But if, while the background is being laid
out, the conflict has been put on hold, they story stops and we have
the dreaded infodump. You have to learn how to slip your background
in as the story moves forward -- that is, as the characters struggle.
Matt Hughes
http://www.archonate.com
>On Jul 7, 1:48 pm, "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)"
><dform...@usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>> The rest of the noval is no better. There is no cliche left unused,
>> no plot twist left untelegraphed and few sentences unmolested by the
>> collar splice.
>
>From what's excerpted here, I would give the author the benefit of the
>doubt and assume that this was an attempt at humor in a Douglas Adams
>mode. Though not really a successful attempt.
I heard back from Dave Langford that Thog also believes that this
passage was intended to be funny, and is there ineligible for
inclusion in his Masterclass column in Ansible.
Jerry Brown
--
A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
>On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:03:34 -0700 (PDT), arch...@googlemail.com
>wrote:
>
>>On Jul 7, 1:48 pm, "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)"
>><dform...@usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>>>
>>> The rest of the noval is no better. There is no cliche left unused,
>>> no plot twist left untelegraphed and few sentences unmolested by the
>>> collar splice.
>>
>>From what's excerpted here, I would give the author the benefit of the
>>doubt and assume that this was an attempt at humor in a Douglas Adams
>>mode. Though not really a successful attempt.
>
>I heard back from Dave Langford that Thog also believes that this
>passage was intended to be funny, and is there ineligible for
s/there/therefore/
I found the Turkey city lexicon entertaining as well as enlightening.
Probably really well known around here already, but just in case:
http://www.sfwa.org/writing/turkeycity.html
--jz
> I found the Turkey city lexicon entertaining as well as enlightening.
>
> Probably really well known around here already, but just in case:
> http://www.sfwa.org/writing/turkeycity.html
I just had my annual dose of slushpile, reading entrants for an SF short
story contest. There is still a desperate need for the Turkey City lexicon
in the larger community, believe me.
It's a great source of inspiration for sure. What bugs me is just that
it doesn't have an expression for the kind of grandiose subtextual
chuckle that can be relied on to ruin any punchlines (i.e. what happens
when Arthur C. Clarke tries to be funny).
mawa
--
http://www.prellblog.de
I have developed a list, "First Novel for Dummmies", which I am going to
post on a blog soon. (After Worldcon.) Remind me and I will supply the
URL.
Brenda
Did you ever post this?
BP
I will. It will appear on Monday, in the latter part of the day (i.e.
late) on the blog at BookViewCafe.com
Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
My novel REVISE THE WORLD is now appearing at
www.bookviewcafe.com