"Blindsighted" good writer bad editor (spoilers)
Newton Love
I hope that all of the dissapointed Patricia Cornwell readers
find their way to Karin's books. They will be pleased.
I liked the writing style a lot. I didn't like some holes. When
I encounter books with big plot holes, I usually stop reading
the novel. Out of respect for Karin's reputation on
rec.arts.mystery, I ignored my usual quit reaction and
pressed on.
I am glad I did. It is a good story.
The writer is responsible for the creation of caracters
and story lines. Often this means the writer is so engrossed
in the creation of a fine tale, that they don't realize when
they have made an ommision or have not explained
something enough. It is the task of the editor to spot
those and bring them to the attention of the writer.
The editor is supposed to make sure the book is
"finished" before going to print.
Karin wrote a great novel. She laid a red-herring trail as
good as I have read. She also used the red-herring to
coincedently point to the trail of the real killer. That is a
wonderful display of story-weaving talent.
Here are things that I wish the editor would have caught.
If the editor had brought them to the author's intention, I'm
sure the fine writer would have changed a few lines, and
it would have been perfect.
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
Let's start with the choreography of the scene where Lena
(the police detective) loses her gun to Julia (p. 184).
First, we are never told where the gun is. I assumed that it
was in Lena's holster. It must not have been, since
"There was a strange noise. Lena found it vaguely
familiar. Too late she realized that it was her gun."
Lena didn't feel the gun slide out of her holster. She
heard the noise. Did Lena put the gun on the bed-table
over Julia's hospital bed? I don't recall reading that she did.
Next, the action sequence was: Lena dabbing Julia's tears
with a kleenex. Julia got the gun. Julia ordered Lena to
back away. "She held the gun awkwardly in her bandaged
hands. It tilted toward Lena, then back toward Julia as
she tried to get a better grip on the weapon."
Why didn't the police detective grab the gun out of Julia's
hands while she fumbled with it? Julia is a 21 year-old
college student. She isn't a hardened criminal. If it is this
easy to disarm Lena, she would have been killed by a
street-orc while still a patrol cop. She wouldn't have
lived long enough to be the great detective that she is
portrayed to be.
I know that the plot required Julia to blow her own head
off, but the editor should have helped the author
choreograph the sequence to make it more believable.
Try rearranging the action in the book like this: Lena
looked to the door, thinking something about Jeffery.
That's when Julia grabs the gun. Despite her bandaged
hands, she takes the gun off safety. Lena looks back
into the bore of her gun. Julia explains to Lena about
how her Dad taught her gun safety.
The book has all of these actions, but in a different
order. A simple rearranging of the written sequence
is all that is required.
Since Julia's hand wounds were several days old palm
piercings, this would be believable. Her fingers would
likely have been left unbandaged. She could have
grabbed the gun, flipped it in her hands and locked on
to Lena. Such a display of gun surety would likely have
caused the detective to back away. The written sequence
of Julia fumbling with the gun should have caused the
experienced veteran detective to grab the gun and get
it away from the emotionally distraught invalid.
The next big editor goof was in the relationship between
Jeffrey and Sara. It was great until Jeffrey's mind is
revealed (his side of their story). Jeffrey was dissapointed
that Sara wouldn't let him become real close to her,
even after several years of marriage.
(Understandable since Sara was raped, but it isn't
foreshadowed very clearly at this point.)
Jeffrey has an affair to make Sara jealous. He hoped
that she would become jealous and be provoked into
fighting for him. Instead she dumped him.
I find it hard to believe that any man has done that
sequence. It is more commonly the actions of a woman
to make her man jealous, provoking him to fight for
her and to pay closer attention to her.
At that point in the story, as a man, I blew Jeffrey
off as effeminite. It really destroyed his leadership
believability at the police department too, since his
character was now shown to use subterfuge and
disengenousness to accomplish his goals.
How could I believe that Jeffrey wasn't
double-dealing at the office too?
If the editor whould have pointed this out, I'm sure
the talented author would have written a subplot
that would not have violated Jeffrey's maleness.
There is also an annoying lack of consistency in
the level detail shown in each scene. For instance,
we know the kind of car everyone drives: it gives
insight into the character. We know a great deal
about the furnishings of the homes, but we know
nothing about the kinds of boats used on the lake.
Anyone in the water culture would be expressive
about the make model and year. Remember Sara
grew up on the lake in Grant, and has her own boat
at her dock.
When Sara see's Jeb's boat (p 131): "she stood up,
admiring the boat. "Nice."
"Real babe magnet." he joked, unhooking the vest.
She new he was teasing, but the boat, painted deep
metallic black, was sleek and sexy, with a dangerous
look about it. Unlike Jeb McGuire in his bulky orange
life jacket.
Jeb said, "I'll tell you what, Sara, if you ever looked
at me the way you're looking at my boat right now,
I'd have to marry you."
Okay, what brand and make was the boat? We know
Sara has a BMW Z-3. It wasn't just sleek and sexy
convertable that Sara drives. So why isn't the boat
named?
Given the boating world, the kind of boat could have
been a great play on character development.
For people who don't know boats, they would
have learned a couple of names. For those in-the-know,
it could have been revealing.
Jeb could have spent a lot of money on a costly boat
that was known to actually be a poor watercraft,
instead of the more common boat used by serious
boaters in Grant County. That would indicate that
Jeb was a novice who bought wrong.
Perhaps another boat selection could be made.
Still, it would have been appropriate to name
the boat model, like was done for the cars and
guns.
A quick note: (p 107) A quick visit to the registrar's
office revealed tht Ryan Gordon was study hall
monitor this time of day.... (p 108) <Lena> walked
purposefully into the room, ignoring the curious
glances coming from the other students, mostly
male, as she made a beeline for the kid behind
the desk at the front of the class.
AFAIK, colleges don't have "study halls". High schools
do, but I have never heard of them in universities. I
admit that I have only attended one university in
Texas and four in California, which is not all of the
schools in the country, but I am fairly sure that students
don't get unit credit at a university for sitting together
with a monitor in a class room for a period.
Those were a few of the things that I believe that an
editor should have caught. It is the editor's job to
insure the plot's cohesion. The editor is supposed to
know more about finishing a book than a first time novelist.
Blindsighted is well written. It could have been even
better if the editor would have been more awake.
newt
Greenbanks
>I hope that all of the dissapointed Patricia Cornwell readers
>find their way to Karin's books. They will be pleased.
It was nice that you started off with a few compliments, before going into such
great detail about the things you didn't like in the book.
I don't want to spoil your spoilers, so I'm not going to get too specific, but
I can't help wondering -- why did you feel it was wrong to allow a male
character to show the same repertoire of emotions and behaviors as a
stereotypical female character? Why did you decide that certain behaviors made
a male character seem effeminate? And why did you write that as if it would be
a bad thing? Are men allowed a limited range in one direction, and women
allowed a different limited range -- and no crossovers?
It's not like that in real life.
Your points about the boat seem valid, if a little long-winded. The other
things may have bothered you more than they did other readers. It's been so
long since I read the book, that most of what you said didn't really click in
my memory.
Glad you finished the book, instead of giving up at the first imperfection.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
M'Lou
Dan Sontup
exiting and well-written book. So when Newton Love wrote about
"bad editing" and "big plot holes" I took out my copy of Karin's
book and checked the points he had raised.
Sorry, Newt, can't agree with you. Let's take it point by point.
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S (maybe)
> Let's start with the choreography of the scene where Lena
> (the police detective) loses her gun to Julia (p. 184).
> First, we are never told where the gun is. I assumed that it
> was in Lena's holster. It must not have been, since
> "There was a strange noise. Lena found it vaguely
> familiar. Too late she realized that it was her gun."
Where else would her gun have been except in its holster? A
police detective doesn't draw her gun unless absolutely necessary
-- and it wasn't at all necessary here.
> Did Lena put the gun on the bed-table
> over Julia's hospital bed? I don't recall reading that she did.
Your building a straw man here.
> Why didn't the police detective grab the gun out of Julia's
> hands while she fumbled with it? Julia is a 21 year-old
> college student. She isn't a hardened criminal. If it is this
> easy to disarm Lena, she would have been killed by a
> street-orc while still a patrol cop. She wouldn't have
> lived long enough to be the great detective that she is
> portrayed to be.
Another straw man. Moreover, you're completely overlooking this
sentence from the scene: "She did not have a good grip on the
gun, but the barrel was pointed toward Lena and her finger was on
the trigger. Lena...honestly could not recall if the safety was
on or off." In this circumstance, Lena would have been foolish
indeed to make a grab for the gun.
> Try rearranging the action in the book like this: Lena
> looked to the door, thinking something about Jeffery.
> That's when Julia grabs the gun. Despite her bandaged
> hands, she takes the gun off safety. Lena looks back
> into the bore of her gun. Julia explains to Lena about
> how her Dad taught her gun safety.
Not as credible as the original scene as written by the author.
> The next big editor goof was in the relationship between
> Jeffrey and Sara.....
I found nothing in their relationship and the motivation of
Jeffrey that would make him appear less masculine. Your opinion
is clearly the opposite -- and you are, of course, entitled to
it.
> .... we know
> nothing about the kinds of boats used on the lake.
>.... Given the boating world, the kind of boat could have
> been a great play on character development.
> For people who don't know boats, they would
> have learned a couple of names. For those in-the-know,
> it could have been revealing.
Naming and describing the boat wouldn't have made any difference
in the action of the scene. In fact, it might have slowed down
the action.
> A quick note: (p 107) A quick visit to the registrar's
> office revealed tht Ryan Gordon was study hall
> monitor this time of day.... (p 108)
> AFAIK, colleges don't have "study halls". High schools
> do, but I have never heard of them in universities. I
> admit that I have only attended one university in
> Texas and four in California, which is not all of the
> schools in the country, but I am fairly sure that students
> don't get unit credit at a university for sitting together
> with a monitor in a class room for a period.
Even if this were true, it hardly approaches the level of a "big
plot hole" -- nor, in my opinion, do any of the other points
you've raised. I feel you're way off the mark here, Newt.
Dan
Newton Love
>>Newton wrote: I read "Blindsighted". Karin Slaughter is a good writer.
>>I hope that all of the disappointed Patricia Cornwell readers
>>find their way to Karin's books. They will be pleased.
>>
>
>It was nice that you started off with a few compliments, before going into such great detail about the things you didn't like in the book.
>
Credit where credit due. KS can write. No doubt about that. The
technicalities
were distractions. Those are the editor's fault. KS has said she writes in
a marathon of about a month. Such an outpouring of the creative soul is
bound to have missed a point or two. The editor is supposed to make sure
the book is finished without holes for the publisher. Good writer, bad
editor.
>I don't want to spoil your spoilers, so I'm not going to get too specific...
>
I'll try not to too (again).
>... why did you feel it was wrong to allow a male
>character to show the same repertoire of emotions and behaviors as a
>stereotypical female character?
>
Actually I didn't. I was speaking of a character violation. I could refer
you to the many books that I have read on character development and
the theory of drama, but this isn't the venue for that. Suffice it to say
that good novels are made of characters that have to be bigger than life.
If they are like our neighbors, who would read about them? (Yeah, I know,
everyone is going to tell me they have wild neighbors. Look, I'm just
paraphrasing from a book about how to write. I can get the exact citation
if you need it.)
If a writer is going to significantly violate the archetypal character
traits,
(and all good ones do), then the character has to be built in the
reader's mind
to the point where the non typical behavior doesn't seem like a violation
of the character.
Perhaps in the author's mind, the character was that complex. As I read
the prose, I was not made to understand this. I was made to understand
that the more "redneck" element in Grant County NC was beginning
to accept the newcomer from "thank God for" Alabama. Jeffrey
was enough of a "good-ole-boy" that the brick throwing lodge brothers
were starting to respond to hs direction.
Suddenly, Jeffrey is not male/male (external/internal sex) but male/female.
Both before and after there is little to indicate this. Perhaps if the
male/female
would have been better built into the plot, it might have not seemed so
discontinuous.
On the other and, if Jeffrey was into Brooks and Dunn instead of George
Straight,
preferred wine to budweiser, had a tastefully appointed condo overlooking
a garden, then the other element would have been part of a very complex
character. In basic terms, if you want to sell the character, you have to
consistently explain her/him to the reader. Otherwise there is a risk that
the character violated their own character. That leads to "breaking the
implied
promise to the reader".
>Why did you decide that certain behaviors made a male character seem effeminate? And why did you write that as if it would be a bad thing?
>
I didn't. In my novels (so far unpublished, but heck, I just started
marketing
in November), my protagonist, Nick Schaevers, is male/female. He is a
wonderfully
twisted set of emotions and behaviors ready for either salvation or his
bifurcating
personality to split into two or more pieces.
It is a great thing to avoid stereotypical behaviors, unless they are
part of the
back-drop. For instance, it is appropriate for Grant County to be populated
with various levels of country boys, including rednecks. It would not seem
right for them all to be in Cambridge Mass, or St. Paul Minnesota.
So, some stereotypical characters help bring realism o a story. Complex
non stereotypical characters bring dimension and increased drama
to a story. To make the character real, the reader has to be encouraged
to buy into the fictional bundle of motivation, methods, evaluations, and
purpose that build a complex character. Without the laying of the character
development, the characters (especially the supporting cast) seem
two-dimensional, and either have character violations, or worse, appear
schizophrenic to the reader.
>Your points about the boat seem valid, if a little long-winded.
>
Yeah, I'm a blow-hard. It keeps the sails full though.
> The other things may have bothered you more than they did other readers.
>
Guaranteed. I've been a technical manager for years. I have read so many
reports, proposals, white papers, manuals, and symposium papers that I've
lost count. I read to make sure that every promise is fulfilled or
explained,
that every argument is either logical or complete, even if it is all
emotions.
I never let writing leave my group until it was a complete and defensible
assertion of our best work. I doubt few people read as carefully as I do.
>Glad you finished the book, instead of giving up at the first imperfection.
>Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
>M'Lou
>
Thanks for your input. Actually, I am looking forward to when I'm published
and I can get the same treatment for my books. As far as I can tell,
they are
hole-less. On the other hand, we cannot see what we are blind to. There
are bound to be holes that I cannot see.
I am looking forward to the brillo-pad scrubbing that I will get for
each of my
novels. It is the only way I can get to know were my blind spots are. I
look
forward to the growing experience of having readers and other authors
give me a taste of my own measure. I want to make ever novel better
than the earlier ones.
newt
--
Time is the currency we spend on friends. (Newton Love, 1974)
Newton Love
>I thought (and have said so) that BLINDSIGHTED is a tremendously
>exiting and well-written book. So when Newton Love wrote about
>"bad editing" and "big plot holes" I took out my copy of Karin's
>book and checked the points he had raised.
>
>Sorry, Newt, can't agree with you. Let's take it point by point.
>
Yes, let's, since a novel should be on topic, even to you.
>
>S
>
>P
>
>O
>
>I
>
>L
>
>E
>
>R
>
>S (maybe)
>
>>Let's start with the choreography of the scene where Lena
>>(the police detective) loses her gun to Julia (p. 184).
>>First, we are never told where the gun is. I assumed that it
>>was in Lena's holster. It must not have been, since
>>"There was a strange noise. Lena found it vaguely
>>familiar. Too late she realized that it was her gun."
>>
>
>Where else would her gun have been except in its holster? A
>police detective doesn't draw her gun unless absolutely necessary
>-- and it wasn't at all necessary here.
>
You deleted my point, making me look foolish. Good editing trick.
I had written in the original post that Lena should have felt the
tug of the gun sliding from her holster. Even with the slickest
of the smooth release hosters, there is a tug. Since KS did not
describe the holster in detail in the previous hoster showings
in the novel, it can be assumed that it is the police issue shoulder
strap that hangs under the armpit.
Where was the tug? the prose indicate that sound alone is the
clue that tells Lena something has happened.
I sold my first amemndment rights to speak my opinion.
>>Why didn't the police detective grab the gun out of Julia's
>>hands while she fumbled with it? Julia is a 21 year-old
>>college student. She isn't a hardened criminal. If it is this
>>easy to disarm Lena, she would have been killed by a
>>street-orc while still a patrol cop. She wouldn't have
>>lived long enough to be the great detective that she is
>>portrayed to be.
>>
>
>Another straw man. Moreover, you're completely overlooking this
>sentence from the scene: "She did not have a good grip on the
>gun, but the barrel was pointed toward Lena and her finger was on
>the trigger. Lena...honestly could not recall if the safety was
>on or off." In this circumstance, Lena would have been foolish
>indeed to make a grab for the gun.
>
No, She would have been an aggressive officer, removing the weapon
from Julia's hands. Lena was shown to be all kinds of aggressive.
Jeffrey had to yell at her for being too aggressive, and then reassigned
her to be his partner so he could watch her. A policeman taking the
risk of getting shot to take her own weapon away from a potential
assailant is reasonable. Leaving the weapon in the hands of a
traimatized victim in a hospital could have become a scene
of incredible bloodshed with dead doctors and nurses. A real
cop should have realized that and taken a round if necessary
to prevent a hostage or blood bath situation.
I still have the right to my opinion. You have yours. Perhaps
you will insist on your's being the only "true" opinion.
I can see your point, but I still disagree. I don't claim
my opinion is true, I claim that, to me, they are holes in the plot.
>>Try rearranging the action in the book like this: Lena
>>looked to the door, thinking something about Jeffery.
>>That's when Julia grabs the gun. Despite her bandaged
>>hands, she takes the gun off safety. Lena looks back
>>into the bore of her gun. Julia explains to Lena about
>>how her Dad taught her gun safety.
>>
>
>Not as credible as the original scene as written by the author.
>
Okay, have it your way. The sequence I suggested implies that the only way
the good detective Lena could have lost her gun was if Julia had a head
start.
I suggested Lena be turned away, so that she wouldn't see Julia reach
up and take the gun. I suggested that the bandages not cover Julia's
fingers, so that she wouldn't fumble with the gun. Since Julia didn't
fumble, Lena has no time period to try to wrtestle the gun away.
The way it was written, and you like better, Lena had three chances
to place her hands on Julias hand(s) that held the gun. Since Lena is
strong and her hands are not hurt, she could have squoze Julia's hands
enough to hurt while turning the barrel o the gun toward the wall of the
hospital room.
Believablity is in the mind's-eye of the beholder (reader). I see you are
beholden to KS and the original prose. Great. Loyalty is a good trait.
>>The next big editor goof was in the relationship between
>>Jeffrey and Sara.....
>>
>
>I found nothing in their relationship and the motivation of
>Jeffrey that would make him appear less masculine. Your opinion
>is clearly the opposite -- and you are, of course, entitled to
>it.
>
Please cite examples of a man engaging in a frivolous affair, solely
for the purpose of making his wife jealous, leading to her paying
more attention to him. Please total the number of citations that
you find in newspapers other novels, film and television,
and wiegh that against the vast number of examples that can
be found for women doing that. I find the ratio to be none/tonzoes.
Look, you like it. I said it doesn't fit with the psychology of the
male/male character, and that I don't believe the male/female
character was sold that well elsewhere for Jeffrey.
>>.... we know
>>nothing about the kinds of boats used on the lake.
>>.... Given the boating world, the kind of boat could have
>>been a great play on character development.
>>For people who don't know boats, they would
>>have learned a couple of names. For those in-the-know,
>>it could have been revealing.
>>
>
>Naming and describing the boat wouldn't have made any difference
>in the action of the scene. In fact, it might have slowed down
>the action.
>
Then why have Sara admire the boat. What did Sara see in it? I
just said the level of detail was inconsistent. If you liked it that
way, good for you.
>>A quick note: (p 107) A quick visit to the registrar's
>> office revealed tht Ryan Gordon was study hall
>> monitor this time of day.... (p 108)
>>AFAIK, colleges don't have "study halls". High schools
>>do, but I have never heard of them in universities. I
>>admit that I have only attended one university in
>>Texas and four in California, which is not all of the
>>schools in the country, but I am fairly sure that students
>>don't get unit credit at a university for sitting together
>>with a monitor in a class room for a period.
>>
>
>Even if this were true, it hardly approaches the level of a "big
>plot hole" -- nor, in my opinion, do any of the other points
>you've raised. I feel you're way off the mark here, Newt.
>
>Dan
>
Perhaps you are just disagreeing with me for spite. Maybe you really don't
see the variance. I don't care. You can kill file me, but I can still have
my esthetics. As a technician, KS lacks the attention to detail that Tess
Gerritsen or Patricia Cornwell has. I loved the surgeon. I read it
with a fine tooth comb. I found only one hole, and even I saw that
it was a tiny one.
When I read Blindsighted, I found the ones I mentioned above, and about
eight more. Try this one:
Jeffrey was on an interview with Lena. The text says that he let Lena
talk. He was amazed at how good she was. The text implied that he had
not noticed this before. Okay, then why didn't Jeffrey notice her skills
when he personally promoted her from patrol to detective?
Minor, but it is a vilolation of the time sense and scope of awareness
of Jeffrey's character.
There is also a lot of what is called innapropriate attribution. Some
editors allow it, but generally it is being called passe' for current
writers
to use it in recent works.
Look, we have different theories of literacy (de)constructionism.
Don't let it get your knickers in a twist. Why do some people love
Picaso why others don't care for him? If you are on one side of
the Picaso is good/bad debate, would you tell the other side
they are wrong? If not, then don't tell me I am wrong.
Oh, I forgot, the only right opinion is when people agree with you.
I thought it was the sound of a door closing, but it was your mind.
Look, I have my opinions. I said KS was a talented writer. I said
her novel was good. In my opinion, it could have been even better.
I'm so glad that you have told me I am wrong. Oh, BTW, you should
recheck your use of "straw-man". I used to tutor critical thinking
and symbolic logic. You would have gotten a low grade for how you
used it.
Gosh! I just love these debates. "We must meet sometime to discuss
the pictures of talking heads that films have become."
Keith Snyder
> Suffice it to say
> that good novels are made of characters that have to be bigger than life.
I hope you don't teach writing.
Keith
UNUSUAL MUSIC AND STORIES: http://www.mp3.com/stations/ksny
http://www.woollymammoth.com/keith
Newton Love
>Newton said:
>
>>Suffice it to say
>>that good novels are made of characters that have to be bigger than life.
>>
>
>I hope you don't teach writing.
>
>Keith
>
Here is a source for the above remark. He a profeesor for more than
twenty years teaching all types of writing, including professional
writing courses.
Your remark indicates that you disagree with the noted expert that I
chose to believe. Perhaps you are right. I shouldn't believe everything
I read.
I know! I'll quote from my expert source, and then you can tell me why
you hope that a writing teacher doesn't say what I said. Perhaps you
will show Professor Bickham why he is in error. Silly me, I just
believed him. I must not be as smart as you.
***** begin bulk quote *****
Bickham, Jack M., "The 38 Most Common Fiction Writing Mystakes (and How
To Avoid Them), Writer's Digest Books, Cincinnatti OH, 1992.
About the Author: Jack M. Bickham is the author of more than sixty-five
published novels and numerous publications on the craft of fiction. A
David Ross Boyd Professor at the University of Oklahoma (the
institution's highest honor for teaching), he left the classroom in 1991
in order to catch up on several writing projects and "look around for a
new teaching environment." He says he hopes to return to teaching soon.
... in fiction real people aren't vivid enough. Good characters have to
be constructed, not copied from actuality...
One of the toughest jobs we ask of our readers is to see the characters
vividly and sympathise with them. Consider: all your readers have to go
by are some symbols printed on a sheet of paper. From these symbols,
readers must recognize letters of the alphabet , make the letters into
words, derive meaning from the words, link the meanings into sentences.
From that point, readers must make an even more amazing leap of faith
or intuition of some kind: they must use their own imagination to
picture -- physically and emotionally -- a person inside their own head.
And they must believe this imagined person is somehow real -- and even
care about him.
Readers need all of the help they can get to perform this arduous
imaginative-emotional task. They have a lot to see through to get the
job done even imperfectly.
To help them, you can't simply transcribe what you see and know about a
real person. You have to construct something that is far bigger than
life, far more exaggerated. Then, if you do your job of exaggeration
extremely well, your readers will see your gross exaggeration dimly, but
well enough to think, "This constructed character looks like a real
person to me."
Good fictional characters, in other words, are never ever real people.
Your idea for a character may begin with a real person, but to make him
vivid enough for your readers to believe in him, you have to exaggerate
tremendously; you have to provide shortcut identifying characteristics
that stick out all over him, you have to make him practicalluy a monster
-- for readers to see even the dimmest outlines. (p 17 - 18)
***** end bulk quote *****
Okay, Keith, I paraphrased the above as:
"Suffice it to say that good novels are made of characters that have to be bigger than life."
I have two other books by other noted writing teachers that say much of the same thing, I just didn't grab them off of my shelf. Please don't tell me I am wrong about what is above. I didn't write it. I just quoted it.
I am either right to believe Dr. Bickham, or I am wrong to believe him, but I did not come to the opinion on my own. I read it in his book.
I may not be a writing teacher, but I know how to research a topic and learn from experts.
newt
Natasha Dee
Trust me, you're not. You're arguing with one of the smartest, most
technically-proficient writers in the crime fiction genre today. Keith Snyder
doesn't need to quote from his expert source: he IS the expert.
Don't go to Dune.
Newton Love
><< I must not be as smart as you. >>
>
>Trust me, you're not.
>
Point! Ha ha ha ha!
>You're arguing with one of the smartest, most
>technically-proficient writers in the crime fiction genre today. Keith Snyder
>doesn't need to quote from his expert source: he IS the expert.
>
Coolness. I'll have to groove on his writing. I'm about a
decade behind in my reading. I've been too long in the
slave-mines of the silicon jungle.
Thanks for the excellent reference. BTW, I didn't know I was arguing.
Was there something I missed? I thought posters to r.a.m were supposed
to "tease" each other a lot. There was the ;-^ winking tongue-in-cheek
stuff, and all of that.
>Don't go to Dune.
>
Now you are too cool. I don't get the reference.
All I can think of is Frank Herbert's Dune series.
I don't think that is it.
Please, tell me what the "Don't go to Dune" reference is!
newt
No Doze
> Good writing does not come from a "how to" guide.
Of course, I'm not a writer. I only read. A lot. I am curious to see some of your work. But I'm guessing you get so caught up in the technical aspects, that the voice you tell it with will get lost.
jon
--
http://www.booksnbytes.com/jon_jordan/index.html
http://www.booksnbytes.com/author_interviews.html
http://www.mysteryone.com/interviews.htm
Laura Lippman
> >
Suffice it to say
> that good novels are made of characters that have to be bigger than life.
> If they are like our neighbors, who would read about them?
I'm trying to figure out how many writers would be eliminated by this
critical standard. Gogol, I'm pretty sure. Anne Beattie. Some of
Margaret Atwood and Jane Smiley. John Cheever. Richard Ford, Bobbie
Ann Mason, Raymond Carver. James Cain, Richard Price. Francine Prose.
Toni Morrison. Larry McMurtry (his contemporary stuff, at least.) John
Updike's Rabbit books. I confess, I compiled that list by glancing to
my right, where I keep my hardcover fiction.
The fact is, a lot of good fiction is written about very average
people -- somein extraordinary circumstances, some in ordinary ones.
(Nicholson Baker!) Yes, there is a long tradition of heroic,
larger-than-life characters in fiction, but it's been hundreds of
years since that was a given. And, yes, within crime fiction we have
larger than life characters such as James Bond, or even Spenser,
characters who are always the smartest, funniest, sexiest people in
the room.
Me, I want to read about my neighbors, and not the wild ones. I want
to know what goes on inside the heads of the most average-looking
citizens. As a journalist, I was always charmed/intrigued by anyone
who did the dart-throwing, phone-book-opening thing and just told the
story of whatever person in whatever town. I would like to go down the
street and ask people randomly who they are and what their lives are
like. But, well, you can get arrested for that. So I write.
I just jumped up and went to my own little shelf of writing books. Not
even a shelf, just a half-dozen volumes -- Carver, Gardner, Annie
Dilliard. Not Lamott, but only because someone borrowed it and didn't
give it back. (!) There's Madison Smartt Bell, who's about to become
my boss, and is one of the most open-minded literary writers I've met,
with no disdain of genre fiction. (I'm going to teach at Goucher this
fall.) But this isn't about duelling experts. I grant Dr. Bickham his
right to create all the rules he likes. I reserve my right to disagree
with him, or anyone else. To say that characters must be
bigger-than-life (Steinbeck?) would eliminate much of what is great
and good in American fiction, which I know best. (Richard Russo?)
laura
J&J
Newton Love wrote:
> Bickham, Jack M., "The 38 Most Common Fiction Writing Mystakes (and How
> To Avoid Them), Writer's Digest Books, Cincinnatti OH, 1992.
> ... in fiction real people aren't vivid enough. Good characters have to
> be constructed, not copied from actuality...
Sorry, I'm not a writer but I strongly believe the above passage is
just plain wrong.
judi
Ric Brandt
As a disclaimer I most say I didn't read the original post as I have blocked
Newt's post cause I got tired of seeing them, still you get my two
cents.....
| > Let's start with the choreography of the scene where Lena
| > (the police detective) loses her gun to Julia (p. 184).
| > First, we are never told where the gun is. I assumed that it
| > was in Lena's holster. It must not have been, since
| > "There was a strange noise. Lena found it vaguely
| > familiar. Too late she realized that it was her gun."
|
| Where else would her gun have been except in its holster? A
| police detective doesn't draw her gun unless absolutely necessary
| -- and it wasn't at all necessary here.
It could be in her purse also, a common place for a female detective not
expecting trouble. This would have given Julia accsess to the weapon under
the circumstances as presented in the book. Also detactives do not usually
wear the heavy grab proof holsters patrol officers wear.
|
| > Did Lena put the gun on the bed-table
| > over Julia's hospital bed? I don't recall reading that she did.
|
| Your building a straw man here.
Not only that but it is highly unlikely. I she had she would most likely
have removed the magazine first. Training is that ingrained in most people
who have to carry for a living. When I carried a semi-auto and the weapon
came out of the holster for any reason other than to fire the weapon (our
threat to fire). I removed the magazine, cleared the chamber and locked it
open with out even thinking about it. ( a Colt 1911a1 for those interested)
|
| > Why didn't the police detective grab the gun out of Julia's
| > hands while she fumbled with it? Julia is a 21 year-old
| > college student. She isn't a hardened criminal. If it is this
| > easy to disarm Lena, she would have been killed by a
| > street-orc while still a patrol cop. She wouldn't have
| > lived long enough to be the great detective that she is
| > portrayed to be.
|
| Another straw man. Moreover, you're completely overlooking this
| sentence from the scene: "She did not have a good grip on the
| gun, but the barrel was pointed toward Lena and her finger was on
| the trigger. Lena...honestly could not recall if the safety was
| on or off." In this circumstance, Lena would have been foolish
| indeed to make a grab for the gun.
Only in Hollywood do cops grab weapons. You go wrestling with weapons
somebody is going to get shot. My first lesson in how to handle
confrontations was if the yell or mouth off, use your command voice.
If they use there fists or feet use your baton. If they arm themselves use
your weapon.
Like the reference to orcs, shows Newt has been reading Jeff Coopers stuff.
Excellent self defence guru, who by the way wouldn't recomend grabbing the
weapon either.
|
| > Try rearranging the action in the book like this: Lena
| > looked to the door, thinking something about Jeffery.
| > That's when Julia grabs the gun. Despite her bandaged
| > hands, she takes the gun off safety. Lena looks back
| > into the bore of her gun. Julia explains to Lena about
| > how her Dad taught her gun safety.
|
The woman was suicidal, logic was not her first priority. The scene as
written was very believable. With a person in that mind set any response is
possible. Despite the weapon this was actually a negotiation scenario, Lisa
tried but Julia had already committed herself.
I've read Blindsighted, from a police procedural stand point Karen did a
fine job. As a former rural deputy I found the story very believable.
Karen is not paying me to say this. <G>
It's been 20 something years since I carried on the streets, how ever I have
kept up with the trade and still shoot. Many of my acquaintances are still
sworn personnel and if anything the training and emphasis on handling
weapons related confrontations has been better than in my old days.
Grow up and get a life Newt........
Ric
Thelma Lubkin
I don't think it's 'wrong'. I just don't see that you know
anything more about 'how to' construct a character after
you've read these 'rules'.
Of course your character won't be 'copied from actuality'.
'Actuality' involves hours of sleep -- rem sleep, light
sleep, trying to fall asleep, several visits per day to the
toilet, time spent on personal grooming, eating, preparation
of what's eaten [or waiting for a restaurant or spouse or
child or parent...to do the preparation], *all* the details
of the hours spent at one's job or vacation or housework,
yardwork, child care, geeking, playing, shopping, barber,
beauty-parlor, physician, pharmacist, dentist...
Of course you're going to abstract; of course you're going
to emphasize what makes your story and your characters
interesting. Every writer follows that 'rule'; the good
ones convince a literate audience that they *have* made
interesting abstractions.
BTW, your neighbor is a very interesting person if you
put her/his story in the hands of the right author
--thelma
: judi
Keith Snyder
> Here is a source for the above remark. He a profeesor for more than
> twenty years teaching all types of writing, including professional
> writing courses.
You're making the techie's tripartite mistake (with which I am intimately
familiar) of thinking (a) there is a right way of doing everything, (b)
somebody knows what it is, and (c) qualifications exist by which that
somebody may be identified.
This works for hardware. It doesn't work for art.
> I know! I'll quote from my expert source
Fourth techie fallacy: Throwing enough "expert" material at an argument is
commensurate with knowing what you're talking about.
Learn to write by doing it a lot, thinking a lot, reading a lot, and
challenging ALL of your assumptions at every possible turn. Look for the
scary things and aim straight for them -- those are your areas of greatest
potential for growth. Recognize and hold on to the non-scary things --
they'll watch your back while you're grappling with monsters.
And for god's sake, stop quoting writing teachers.
> I may not be a writing teacher, but I know how to research a topic and learn
> from experts.
Good. That's one of your non-scary things. Put it behind you and head
toward confusion.
Keith Snyder
said:
> I'm trying to figure out how many writers would be eliminated by this
> critical standard. Gogol, I'm pretty sure. Anne Beattie. Some of
> Margaret Atwood and Jane Smiley. John Cheever. Richard Ford, Bobbie
> Ann Mason, Raymond Carver. James Cain, Richard Price. Francine Prose.
> Toni Morrison. Larry McMurtry (his contemporary stuff, at least.) John
> Updike's Rabbit books.
Yeah!
Also Annie Proulx, Anne Lamott (what is it with the name "Ann" and the
litrachur gene?), Hemingway, at least in his secondary characters and
sometimes in his main characters.
I'm not sure yet about scale of the people in THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV.
They're described both vividly and subtly, and certain aspects of each are
emphasized, but I don't know who the narrator is yet.
Newton Love
>Of course, I'm not a writer. I only read. A lot. I am curious to see some of your work. But I'm guessing you get so caught up in the technical aspects, that the voice you tell it with will get lost.
>jon
>
I just started marketing my first novel in November. I have
some interest, but no signed contracts. I can send you
a copy of the text. It is just under 77,000 words.
I am ready for a larger critique than the two college
professors (English and writing dept) who were my
editors. I'm wxpecting though that some RAMmers
will tear it to shreds without even reading it. (I just
saw a post that said "I missed newt's original post..."
but proceeded to write about it anyhow.
Sure I can send you an e-copy if you would like.
I am workig on my second novel. I have four in the
first series (set in St. Louis). I have six in a series
to write that is set in Baltimore.
newt
Newton Love
>As a disclaimer I most say I didn't read the original post as I have blocked
>Newt's post cause I got tired of seeing them, still you get my two
>cents.....
>
>| > Let's start with the choreography of the scene where Lena
>| > (the police detective) loses her gun to Julia (p. 184).
>| > First, we are never told where the gun is. I assumed that it
>| > was in Lena's holster....
>|
>
>It could be in her purse also, a common place for a female detective not
>expecting trouble. This would have given Julia accsess to the weapon under
>the circumstances as presented in the book. Also detactives do not usually
>wear the heavy grab proof holsters patrol officers wear.
>
In an earlier passage, Lena allows the holstered weapon
to be seen by an uncooperative suspect. Also, I can't recall
a reference to Lena carrying a purse.
>Not only that but it is highly unlikely. I she had she would most likely
>have removed the magazine first.
>
The text says that Lena didn't know if a round was chambered.
If it was an autmatic... Skip it.
Look, I have posted comments on books that I read.
My "sluice" issue is breaks in sequence and holes
in the story that are either not explained or impossible.
When I said that there were three bad goofs in
the last Patterson, no body said a word.
I said there were editor mistakes in Blindsighted,
and the sky is dark with the chutes of paratroopers
flying in to post that I am wrong.
I think you guys are just closing ranks around
your own, against a perceived threat.
Forget it. I am not a threat. KS's future is assured.
Heck, she's going international. My comments
don't mean squat.
I'm off of this sub-thread.
newton
Keith Snyder
> When I said that there were three bad goofs in
> the last Patterson, no body said a word.
>
> I said there were editor mistakes in Blindsighted,
> and the sky is dark with the chutes of paratroopers
> flying in to post that I am wrong.
>
> I think you guys are just closing ranks around
> your own, against a perceived threat.
I think that's true to an extent (and natural) -- but you also pissed people
off about the "off-topic" thing and then followed immediately with criticism
of one of the locals' books.
Newton Love
>Newton wrote:
>
>>Here is a source for the above remark. He's a professor...
>>
>
>You're making the techie's tripartite mistake (with which I am intimately
>familiar) of thinking (a) there is a right way of doing everything, (b)
>somebody knows what it is, and (c) qualifications exist by which that
>somebody may be identified.
>
>This works for hardware. It doesn't work for art.
>
Thank you for the sage advice. I realize that the exaggeration Dr. Belham
refers to is hyperbolic. Of course. I concede that.
You are wrong about your assumption that I beleive. My beliefs
are actually: (a) there are many paths to every goal. (b) methods
that work for some people won't work for others, and (c) methods
must be adapted before they can be adopted.
I chose to believe the "bigger than life" character side of the arguement.
I didn't mean to assert that all characters must be that. I didn't assert
that the complement of my arguement was true either. IOW, that a
good novel cannot have only "normal" characters.
Something about my posts has led you to reply that my opinions
about litereature and fiction novels are wrong. I am sorry that
you feel this way. As a reader, I have opinions, and as a person
who is attempting to be a writer, I have another complementary
set. As a reader, I accept other people's writing with more grace
than I do my own writing. I am brutal in my self criticism.
The two editors that I used to help me finish my first novel
told me that my first novel was better than a lot of people's
second and third attempts. BTW, one is a retired creative
writing and English prof from Johns Hopkins in Baltimore,
the other currently head of the English department
at a university in France.
Yes, I know that that doesn't mean a thing .
Look, I'm just starting out. Was it this brutal for you when you
started on your path?
>>I know! I'll quote from my expert source
>>
>
>Fourth techie fallacy: Throwing enough "expert" material at an argument is
>commensurate with knowing what you're talking about.
>
No, it is the defensive ploy of the unknown speaker. You and
everyone else are established experts. You can say something
and the weight of your expertise carries it forward. (As it should).
I am a newcomer to the group. I have no "credentials".
I can't make an assertion and have it accepted. Check every
assertion I have made in the ng. They have all been challenged.
So, since I have no standing, I had to call in an expert to state
my opinion. After doing that, I was ridiculed for that tactic.
(Tough crowd! Tough crowd!)
What does "knowing what you're talking about" mean?
I was saying that a good novel has great characters.
That is short for "IMHO, ...." Do I need credentials
before I can derive an opinion on the traits that are
common to novels that I think are good?
>Learn to write by doing it a lot, thinking a lot, reading a lot, and
>challenging ALL of your assumptions at every possible turn. Look for the
>scary things and aim straight for them -- those are your areas of greatest
>potential for growth. Recognize and hold on to the non-scary things --
>they'll watch your back while you're grappling with monsters.
>
I already do that. I rewrote my first novel nine times.
It is good to be reminded of the principals though.
I've lived my whole life that way. You wouldn't know
that I moved out on my own at 16, supporting myself
(I had my own apartment) by selling paintings and ceramics
in parks, and working part time in a Scandinavian gift and furniture
boutique. (I was the only heterosexual in the 11 employees).
Since then, I have challenged every barrier with either
perseverance or the cleverness to see an alternative
path. I spent years studying lots of religions. I read a
lot of philosophy. I conquered the branch of science
I focussed on.
Now, after years of tech life, I am returning to art.
I have a symphonic cantata for cathedral organ and
double choir being evalutated by one of the junior
conductors of the National Symphony Orchestra.
He liked it and wants to make a few changes prior
to seeing about working it into a performance and
having it published. I am working on an opera as well.
You don't even know me. You assume since you have
read a few posts from me that you know who I am and
what all of my faults are. I say that you still don't know me.
I freely admit that I don't know you. On the other hand,
I have acknowledged your expterise in your chosen
field, but also in any other area that you may write a
post about.
So, what's the problem here? I hope that there isn't
one.
BTW, if you would like witnesses to any of my claims,
like moving out of my parent's house at 16, I can supply
them. I am still in touch with my high school classmates.
>And for god's sake, stop quoting writing teachers.
>
Sure thing. Do my editors count too?
newt
Newton Love
>in article 3C5708A4...@toad.net, Newton Love said:
>
>>When I said that there were three bad goofs in
>>the last Patterson, no body said a word.
>>
>>I said there were editor mistakes in Blindsighted,
>>and the sky is dark with the chutes of paratroopers
>>flying in to post that I am wrong.
>>
>>I think you guys are just closing ranks around
>>your own, against a perceived threat.
>>
>
>I think that's true to an extent (and natural) -- but you also pissed people
>off about the "off-topic" thing and then followed immediately with criticism
>of one of the locals' books.
>Keith
>
Purely coincedental. (same time, no other connection).
I started the novel, then blew up at Dan. I was
wrong for blowing up. I was wrong for getting
rude and flaming. I wrote a dozen apology posts.
BTW, a few people did post that they felt Dan's
post should have been OT, and Dan admitted it.
If you look at the on topic posts that I have made,
they are all:
I read somebook.
either it was good, or it had holes.
I forgot, since Karin said she found posts from
me in rush limbaugh and alt.redheads, that I was
a troll.
False accusation. There are eight Newton Love
people on the net. I sent them emails last year.
I was falsely accused, but it didn't matter.
I searched groups.google.com for the alleged posts,
and didn't find them.
Oh well, I guess I am black listed for sure.
newton
Greenbanks
>the last Patterson, no body said a word.
>I said there were editor mistakes in Blindsighted,
>and the sky is dark with the chutes of paratroopers
>flying in to post that I am wrong.
<snip>
>My comments
>don't mean squat.
>I'm off of this sub-thread.
>newton
So -- you want RAM to be a place to discuss books. You start a thread about a
book, and when people arrive to discuss (and in some cases, disagree) you no
longer want to play?
Could it be that nobody really cared about the Patterson book enough to
comment? I couldn't post on that thread because I haven't read the book.
Could it be that people did care enough about Blindsighted to post something?
I would have thought you'd be pleased to see that a post of yours finally lead
to a decent thread of conversation and opinion.
Why not try another book and see? Or look in on other book threads -- or not.
But the rest of us won't be worrying about whether or not we're making you
happy with what we talk about here.
M'Lou
Keith Snyder
> Something about my posts has led you to reply that my opinions
> about litereature and fiction novels are wrong.
I don't have any objection at all until opinions are presented as rules.
> Look, I'm just starting out. Was it this brutal for you when you
> started on your path?
"Always like this."
- The Professional
> I am a newcomer to the group. I have no "credentials".
> I can't make an assertion and have it accepted. Check every
> assertion I have made in the ng. They have all been challenged.
Speaking only for myself, they've been challenged only because of how
they've been presented, not because of any lack of authority.
> That is short for "IMHO, ...."
IMHO, nothing is "short for" IMHO. That's why I use the words "in my view"
and "as I see it" a lot. Not always, admittedly. But if they're left off
as a matter of course, the way I read things, it's a flat statement of how
things are, period.
> I say that you still don't know me.
Of course I don't. I've just had enough pain from the difference between
technical and artistic work in my own life to think I recognized something.
>> And for god's sake, stop quoting writing teachers.
>>
> Sure thing. Do my editors count too?
I'll get back to you on that.
Keith Snyder
Newton Love
>>When I said that there were three bad goofs in
>>the last Patterson, no body said a word.
>>
>>I said there were editor mistakes in Blindsighted,
>>and the sky is dark with the chutes of paratroopers
>>flying in to post that I am wrong.
>>
><snip>
>
>>My comments
>>don't mean squat.
>>I'm off of this sub-thread.
>>newton
>>
>
>So -- you want RAM to be a place to discuss books. You start a thread about a
>book, and when people arrive to discuss (and in some cases, disagree) you no
>longer want to play?
>
You aren't reading carefully. I wrote sub-thread. As in
part of the subject thread. You were so busy jumping
to a conclusion you missed it.
Yes, I am back on this sub-thread , but only because you
made a personal attack. You really need to cut back
on your red meat, or what ever it is that makes you
want to make snide remarks about me.
If you are still sore from the previous time I was mad
and blew-up, then get over it, like I was told to to at least
ten times by RAMmers.
Teh reason I wanted to exit this SUB-THREAD is still
the same. This sub-thread isn't about books. It became
attack Newton's notions about literature.
If you want to do that, please feel free to do so, but do it
without me. You all seem to be able to burn someone
in cyber effagy very well without any help.
Here, I'll help you start the rest of the thread:
"Can you believe that troll newt? He actually
thought that he could have an opinion about
books. I never met a more arrogant missing-link
in my life. What a cretin. Imagine, he actually
thinks that he has two brain cells to rub together."
>I would have thought you'd be pleased to see that a post of yours finally lead
>to a decent thread of conversation and opinion.
>
Books, dear, not recursive inquisitions into why...
Oh why bother. You are beyond hope. I will try
one more time.
In this thread, I said the gun was either out of
Lena's holster or in it. Some other enlightened RAMmer
said it might have been in her purse. I replied
that the book said Lena showed the gun, in her holster,
under her coat, to a male suspect that she was interviewing.
She had a holster! This thread was beating me up for
not believing the written sequence while claiming
Lena carried the gun in her purse!
Are you daft? The thread stopped being abouyt the book.
Ot became bash newton. You kept it up, so, keep it
up without me. Bash me in absentia. It is more fun
for everyone.
When you want to talk books, I'll be back.
newton
Newton Love
Yes, it is nice to meet you too. You are a wise man, and I hope
to compare my questions with yours. If I find any answers,
I will ask you what you think. I've got about 40 more years
before I am gone, based on the longevity of my family. I hope
our paths cross a lot. They might, since I am going to try
to be as good in the arts as I am/was in science. It is my
second half of life quest.
Perhaps I will try my hardest and find I am a no talent hack.
Oh well, I will be just another human. Perhaps I am talented.
Only time will tell.
I will take your advice. I should use "I think" and "Isn't it"
and "how about" more often. It is much more polite.
In geek-circles, it is a sign of weakness. In the arts,
I see it is considered arrogant and pushy, and a lot of
other words.
For your advice on that regard, I realize that I am in your
debt. I owe you one for pointing it out, since I was so blind
to it. I am beginning to see that geek conversation protocols
are not at all like what is normal here. I hadn't realized
how geek I had become.
I used to think I was like James Brolin in his old "Markus
Welby MD" lab coat, saying "Hi. I'm not a geek, but I
play one at work." I was wrong. I had become one.
I probably left for semi-retirement just in time.
Thanks for your advice Keith! It is nice to meet you.
Clockwork Orange
<newt...@toad.net>:
> They might, since I am going to try
> to be as good in the arts as I am/was in science. It is my
> second half of life quest.
Having braved a mid-life career change of my own, I wish you the
best. It ain't easy but it can be very rewarding.
--
Cheers,
--Jeff
B'con 2001 Photo Gallery:
http://www.cincinnatimedia.com/bouchercon2001/
Natasha Dee
posts.... when it comes to communicating: sometimes less is more.
ND
Keith Snyder
> In the arts,
> I see it is considered arrogant and pushy, and a lot of
> other words.
I wouldn't say that. I'd say that to me, it's considered arrogant and
pushy. Others in the arts will disagree.
> I am going to try
> to be as good in the arts as I am/was in science.
I hope you succeed.
Let me know if your music is performed in or near NYC.
Brigid73
What are you teaching at Goucher? (I assume something in the English or
Journalism department, but I've been known to be wrong before).
Brigid
J&J
judi
BoxHill
Well, I can't claim to be either a fiction writer OR a professor, but I did
major in English and study the subject in graduate school, and I have been a
professional writer for some of my adult life. I have been a lifelong voracious
and devoted reader of poetry as well as various types of prose.
Generally, I disagree with what the man says. I disagree because he speaks in
absolutes. Yes, some writers do exactly as he says. Dickens wrote novels with
larger-than-life characters, virtual caricatures They work. Many mystery
writers write novels with what one might call "unrealistic" or exaggerated
characters: Thomas Perry, for example, whose latest book I am very happily
reading right now. There are also a slew of hacks who write novels in which
everyone is a "type" or defined by a constantly reiterated list of traits:
pretty much what the professor reccomends. There are many others whose
characters are quite realistic in scale. Some of those writers, in my opinion,
succeed and some do not.
I wonder what happened to Bickham's own 65 novels? SOunds to me like he's
probably writing Harlequins under several pseudonyms (which would definitely
explain his stylistic point of view).
Janet
//Dear Artemesia! Poetry's a snare:
//Bedlam has many Mansions: have a care:
//Your Muse diverts you, makes the Reader sad:
//You think your self inspir'd; He thinks you mad.
CnMrshll
>my boss, and is one of the most open-minded literary writers I've met,
>with no disdain of genre fiction. (I'm going to teach at Goucher this fall.)"
Oh, good. I graduated from Goucher (back when it was a woman's college). One of
the best things about Goucher is that the faculty really cares about teaching
undergraduates. I look back sometimes and realize how much i, a mediocre
student at the time, benefitted from tne focus on teaching. I hope you enjoy
teaching there; I'm sure the students will enjoy you. ConnieM
Sarah Weinman
news:1b339405.02012...@posting.google.com...
write.
(I'm going to teach at Goucher this fall>
Congratulations! And good luck with the foray into pedagogy. I take it
you're going to corrupt impressionable young minds on the finer arts of
Tart (and other kinds) of Noir?
Sarah
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Sarah Weinman
news:3C56AC0C...@gbronline.com...
OK I've actually read some of Jack Bickham's books. For one, he wrote a
series about a tennis player/CIA spy named Brad Smith. They were kind of
fun but well, they had no soul.
If I have to trust a writing teacher, I'd go with Larry Block, myself.
But my take on this whole "teaching writing", strictly as a reader, is
that there ain't no magic formula (and if there were and it was bottled,
it would probably get moldy really fast) but when it works...it's good.
ell...@webtv.net
newton. You kept it up, so, keep it up without me. Bash me in absentia.
It is more fun for everyone.
When you want to talk books, I'll be back.
newton>>
??? Back from where? You never left.
You just keep posting that you're going to.
Ellen
ell...@webtv.net
<<Has anyone mentioned Leopold Bloom?>>
No. And no. Nononono.
Ellen
Brad James
writing for that matter. If there's a hole in a work, it's the writer's
fault, not the editors. In most cases, the writer has the final word.
Particularly when I've read in this group that the writer dashes them
off in a month -- then it's definitely the writer's fault. Maybe the
writer should spend a little more time at their craft, I furiously said
... then mumbled ...
JJ Harmon
isn't worth getting worked up about. What's wrong with you people?
JaneHadd
>twenty years teaching all types of writing, including professional
>writing courses.
>
Well, a couple of points here.
Writing teachers are not "experts" at writing. If they were, they'd be
writers. And even if they are writers, they're only "experts" at teaching what
they themselves do to write.
Professor Bickham claims 65 published novels. When I hit Amazon, however,
all the inprint books listed under his name were how-to books out of Writer's
Digest Press. All the novels are out of print, and the most recent one was in
print in 1988--but not originally published then, as it is a reprint edition.
So far, I'm not impressed.
On top of that, though, I'd be VERY careful about taking advice from
how-to-write outfits like Writer's Digest and The Writer, and Mr. Bickham's
how-to books are all published by WD.
Sometimes, you can get good advice from these sources--Larry Block used to
do a wonderful column for Writer's Digest magazine that actually had good
things to say. Too often, though, the advice offered is wrongheaded or bad,
and the whole enterprise depends on a continuing supply of writer wannabes who
don't know what they're doing.
On a business level, the advice in these venues is excruciatingly bad.
I've been writing for magazines for 20 years--more, by now. The common
practice is for a magazine to contract with a writer for a certain number of
articles/columns/whatever over the course of a year. It's almost never the
case that "good" magazines take individual articles from individual queries.
I've looked at dozens of articles and books giving advice on how to write for
magazines, though, and NEVER have I seen the contract system even mentioned,
never mind discussed, and yet the fact of that system has more to do with why a
"new" writer has difficulty getting published in, say, Vanity Fair than any
other single factor.
Third, if this is the kind of advice Mr. Bichham gives:
>.. in fiction real people aren't vivid enough. Good characters have to
>be constructed, not copied from actuality...
Ditch him. This is TERRIBLE advice. It isn't true about most successful
books, either popular or literary.
I tend to feel the way others here did about your characterization of
Jeffrey. I don't find his actions "effeminate" in anyway, and I've known
enough men in my life who've pulled nonsense like that to find it perfectly
believable in a male character.
The idea that such an action is "effeminate" at all seems to me to be
sexist as hell.
Jane Haddam
JaneHadd
>started on your path?
THIS is brutal? Oh, sweetheart, wait till you actually have editors.
Jane Haddam
Laura Lippman
> the best things about Goucher is that the faculty really cares about teaching
> undergraduates. I look back sometimes and realize how much i, a mediocre
> student at the time, benefitted from tne focus on teaching. I hope you enjoy
> teaching there; I'm sure the students will enjoy you. ConnieM
Thanks to everyone who congratulated me on this new (very part-time)
gig. It's just one course, sophomore level, in the writing major. But
I think the world of Bell and his wife, Beth Spires, who run the
program. And Goucher is lovely.
Speaking of Goucher -- when I almost severed my toe in the ocean some
15 years ago, a nurse on the beach wrapped my foot in a T-shirt. Which
happened to read: "Better Dead Than Coed." My father later gave the
blood-spattered T to Goucher's then-president.
laura (still have all 10 toes, but if I ever really get drunk at a
convention, I'll show you the scar tissue)
Keith Snyder
Keith Snyder
said:
> What's wrong with you people?
Tim Tams.
JonathanAskew
Greenbanks wrote:
>
> Why not try another book and see?
dear M'Lou,
Have mercy on the rest of us, please.
cheers,
Mary
A R Pickett
> Newton wrote
>
> > >
> Suffice it to say
> > that good novels are made of characters that have to be bigger than
life.
> > If they are like our neighbors, who would read about them?
and Laura responded - "I'm trying to figure out how many writers would be
eliminated by this
critical standard"
My all time best read of the last 3-4 years is "Plainsong" by Kent Haruf -
the characters are ordinary men, women & children - residents of a small
town on the high plains of Colorado. This book is breathtakingly beautiful
in every way - I alternated between choking down sobs & then giggles, often
on the same page. All the "big" issues of life are contained in Haruf's
little invented community - in which no one is famous or larger than life.
A great part of the charm of the book is the very ordinariness of all of the
characters.
On the mystery genre side - most of Elmore Leonard's works feature ordinary
next door neighbor kind of people.
I could go on & on, bottom line - I agree with Laura.
Woodstock
Sarah Weinman
>
> Speaking of Goucher -- when I almost severed my toe in the ocean some
> 15 years ago, a nurse on the beach wrapped my foot in a T-shirt. Which
> happened to read: "Better Dead Than Coed." My father later gave the
> blood-spattered T to Goucher's then-president.
>
> laura (still have all 10 toes, but if I ever really get drunk at a
> convention, I'll show you the scar tissue)
(Note to stealthy RAMMers attending next BCon: I think we have our next
project!!)
Sarah Weinman
news:20020130062318...@mb-mi.aol.com...
>
> Professor Bickham claims 65 published novels. When I hit Amazon, however,
> all the inprint books listed under his name were how-to books out of Writer's
> Digest Press. All the novels are out of print, and the most recent one was in
> print in 1988--but not originally published then, as it is a reprint edition.
>
> So far, I'm not impressed.
I don't think Amazon is correct. Bickham, AFAIK, had a book published as
recently as 1998 or '99--it had a female protagonist and was called
Murder in Oklahoma, I think. Set at a university in OK.
But like I said in another post, I read a few of his tennis novels. Fun,
but kind of facile.
Jeanne Ketterer
Jeanne
"Keith Snyder" <ke...@woollymammoth.com> wrote in message
news:B87D5F4E.2AF1F%ke...@woollymammoth.com...
BLIND 321
wrote the basic story for Blindsighted in one month, it was not put into
production the day after. Other people read the book, it was edited, and I
rewrote sections. This is how the publication process works, which perhaps
some of you do not know.
As for the time element, I'm a fast writer, but I'm also a very careful writer.
Different authors work at different speeds, and I think it's arrogant for a
person to judge--or penalize--an author based on how quickly or slowly that
person thinks the author should work.
In the end, I am the one responsible for my book, and I stand by my content.
KS
Bill Burgess
J&J wrote:
> anyone else hearing violins? or need a drink?
Make it a double, please. "...if you would like witnesses
to any of my claims..." WTF?
Mark Billingham
KS >>
Karin, don't rise to the bait. He clearly has (A) Many issues. (B) Far too much
time on his hands. He clearly does NOT have (A) Thoughts or opinions of his
own.
(B) A publishing deal...
Mark
Natasha Dee
publishing deal...
Mark >>
Mark, oh Mark: how cruel thou art!
Apparently, based on his comments, Newt also lacks a realistic grasp of how
incredibly difficult it is to get a publishing deal these days as well. But....
I have no desire to disillusion a person before their time (besides, Carl might
call me cynical again if I did).
Clockwork Orange
(Laura Lippman):
> but if I ever really get drunk at a
> convention
'Scusing me but you mispled "again"
--
Cheers,
--Jeff
B'con 2001 Photo Gallery:
http://www.cincinnatimedia.com/bouchercon2001/
Clockwork Orange
(BLIND 321):
> In the end, I am the one responsible for my book, and I stand by
> my content.
It would be easier to tell if'n you weren't such a teensy lil thang.
And CUTE~!!! too.
Robert Ellis
thread above) are at best mean spirited. At worst, vicious. All in
all, I think you two are ready for a chat room. My guess you'll be
lonely. Best of luck and good-bye.
RE
Stephen Booth
> Karin, don't rise to the bait. He clearly has (A) Many issues. (B) Far too
much
> time on his hands. He clearly does NOT have (A) Thoughts or opinions of
his
> own. (B) A publishing deal... <
And perhaps he's just jealous. Like me, in fact.
Steve
(dreaming of being able to write the book in one month and taking the rest
of the year off)
http://www.stephen-booth.com
Barry Award winner and Anthony Award nominee for 'Black Dog'
Macallan Gold Dagger nominee for 'Dancing with the Virgins'
Coming in April 2002 from HarperCollins: 'Blood on the Tongue'
ell...@webtv.net
convention, I'll show you the scar tissue)>>
<<(Note to stealthy RAMMers attending next BCon: I think we have our
next project!!)
Sarah>>
Good lord. A banner is one thing--but you're going to steal Laura's
TOE?
(pssst to Laura: No sandals at B'con)
Ellen
Robert Ellis
Even more, it's not even accurate. Writers don't work in a vacuum.
Many people read a manuscript and make comments. My relationship with
my editor is extremely close. The insights she's made have been right
on the money and improved the work. The published work is the result of
the contributions of family, friends, and professionals. That's why
most writers include acknowledgments.
Stephen Booth
> Good lord. A banner is one thing--but you're going to steal Laura's
> TOE? <
Ellen, this sounds dangerously like an incriminating statement. The
disappearance of that banner is a complete mystery.
Steve
ell...@webtv.net
Good lord. A banner is one thing--but you're going to steal Laura's
TOE?>>
<<Ellen, this sounds dangerously like an incriminating statement. The
disappearance of that banner is a complete mystery.
Steve>>
I'm ALWAYS being misunderstood. I was simply referring to the banner
incident as an example of a totally harmless prank, a victimless
misdemeanor, as it were. I wasn't accusing anyone. I don't know
nuthin' about filchin' banners.
(Whew.)
Ellen
Bill Burgess
Alberto
Well said Robert, and I have to agree also with my UK rammer contingent Mark B
and Stephen B, that the thread Mr Newton started was really annoying to me, and
reeked of Jealously, Low IQ, a poor understanding of the whole process, and
basically the rant of an immature mind.
I found all of his previous posts annoying, verbose and mean-spirited, and his
verbosity only matched by his lack of insight. It takes little skill in being
critical, in fact it's the domian of the idiot, and it takes far more insight
and intellect to be constructive. The only amusement I found is that perhaps Mr
Newton should employ an editor, for his words ramble-on like a burst sewage
pipe. But imagine being his editor ? frightening thought.
I also admire Karin for having the resolve not to get involved, because Mr
Newton (in my mind) doesn't really understand what he is talking about.
And to conclude, I found 'Blindsighted' a remarkable book, one that I read in
two sittings, even if some of the scenes made me flinch, rustle in my chair -
proving the power of Karin's talent, but then again I posted my review last
year.
I am really looking forward to 'Kisscut' and following Ms. Slaughters career,
and thats my thoughts from a Rainy day in England.
Best Regards
Al
Ps. My mother gave me some advice many years ago, which I think you should
listen to :-
'If you have nothing constructive to say, then keep your mouth closed, like
when you're eating.'
Ric Brandt
news:19885-3C...@storefull-213.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
we here at the Bureau of Homeland Defense Enforcement would be investigating
this if that was all it was? AT this point in the investigation you should
be aware of your constituional rights. I highly recommend you shut up and
get an attorney.....
Ric
BLIND 321
incident as an example of a totally harmless prank, a victimless
misdemeanor, as it were. >>
Actually, the cost of the banner probably knocks it up to a felony.
KS, knows from banners
Greenbanks
>Ha! Laura wakes up in a bathtub full of ice...
Hahaha!
And then we can start an email campaign to get everyone in the world to send
her a Get Well -- sorry you lost your toe -- Card.
JrAtEase
like when you're eating.'>
And the American version of that must be what my mother told me:
"If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all"
John
Sarah Weinman
news:1BV58.3006$k91.132756@wards...
> Ellen wrote:
> > Good lord. A banner is one thing--but you're going to steal Laura's
> > TOE? <
>
> Ellen, this sounds dangerously like an incriminating statement. The
> disappearance of that banner is a complete mystery.
>
> Steve
>
Well that was one criminal endeavor I was actually NOT involved in.
But then there's that hearsay thing again...
Beth Tindall
"Alberto" <akari...@aol.comSpecialX> wrote
> I also admire Karin for having the resolve not to get involved, because Mr
> Newton (in my mind) doesn't really understand what he is talking about.
>
I keep thinking about Ila's signature quote from the hockey player -- make a
mistake, a red light goes off and 15,000 people boo you ------ if I were KS,
I'd be thinking "hey, that sounds good right about now -- at least booing
doesn't last for a long time and end up in Google." [1]
Not that I agree with Newt's "plot holes" suggested for Blindsighted, by the
way.
Beth
[1] A lot of discussion on Blindsighted is only bound to help it sell
better, rather than turn readers away from it -- which, as Newt has said, it
deserves to sell well.
Bill Burgess
Ric Brandt wrote:
Constitutional rights? *snicker*
John Ashcroft
David Matthews
> > Professor Bickham claims 65 published novels. When I hit Amazon,
however,
> > all the inprint books listed under his name were how-to books out of
Writer's
> > Digest Press. All the novels are out of print, and the most recent one
was in
> > print in 1988--but not originally published then, as it is a reprint
edition.
> >
> > So far, I'm not impressed.
>
> I don't think Amazon is correct. Bickham, AFAIK, had a book published as
> recently as 1998 or '99--it had a female protagonist and was called
> Murder in Oklahoma, I think. Set at a university in OK.
>
> But like I said in another post, I read a few of his tennis novels. Fun,
> but kind of facile.
>
> Sarah
>
>
>
> --
bought at a library sale. The copyright date is 1998.
Dave
Mike Burke
<WOODSTOC...@PReODIGY.NET> wrote:
>
>> Newton wrote
>>
>> > >
>> Suffice it to say
>> > that good novels are made of characters that have to be bigger than
>life.
>> > If they are like our neighbors, who would read about them?
>
>and Laura responded - "I'm trying to figure out how many writers would be
>eliminated by this
>critical standard"
>
>
>My all time best read of the last 3-4 years is "Plainsong" by Kent Haruf -
>the characters are ordinary men, women & children - residents of a small
>town on the high plains of Colorado. This book is breathtakingly beautiful
>in every way - I alternated between choking down sobs & then giggles, often
>on the same page. All the "big" issues of life are contained in Haruf's
>little invented community - in which no one is famous or larger than life.
>A great part of the charm of the book is the very ordinariness of all of the
>characters.
>
>On the mystery genre side - most of Elmore Leonard's works feature ordinary
>next door neighbor kind of people.
>
>I could go on & on, bottom line - I agree with Laura.
Well, one of my own favourites in recent years tends to confirm your
point, I think, Woodstock. IMHO, 'A Painted House' is John Grisham's
best book by a country mile. Not a single character or incident or
location in that book could be said to be larger than life. Everyone
and everything is 'ordinary', but so meticulously drawn as to be very
special indeed.
As for 'Blindsighted', read my Amazon 'review' (if you're interested)
to confirm that I've always held the view that it's the very
'ordinariness' of the characters, and of their community, that makes
it such a special book. Ditto 'True Believers', 'Sleepy Head', 'Show
Control' and the four Mankell books that I read over the last few
months. Super-heroes are for comic books.
Mique
Mique
mseidman
> Keith Snyder wrote:
>
> >Newton said:
> >
> >>Suffice it to say
> >>that good novels are made of characters that have to be bigger than life.
> >>
> >
> >
> >Keith
> >
>
> Here is a source for the above remark. He a profeesor for more than
> twenty years teaching all types of writing, including professional
> writing courses.
>
> Your remark indicates that you disagree with the noted expert that I
> chose to believe. Perhaps you are right. I shouldn't believe everything
> I read.
>
> I know! I'll quote from my expert source, and then you can tell me why
> you hope that a writing teacher doesn't say what I said. Perhaps you
> will show Professor Bickham why he is in error. Silly me, I just
> believed him. I must not be as smart as you.
>
> ***** begin bulk quote *****
>
> Bickham, Jack M., "The 38 Most Common Fiction Writing Mystakes (and How
> To Avoid Them), Writer's Digest Books, Cincinnatti OH, 1992.
>
> About the Author: Jack M. Bickham is the author of more than sixty-five
> published novels and numerous publications on the craft of fiction. A
> David Ross Boyd Professor at the University of Oklahoma (the
> institution's highest honor for teaching), he left the classroom in 1991
> in order to catch up on several writing projects and "look around for a
> new teaching environment." He says he hopes to return to teaching soon.
>
>
> ... in fiction real people aren't vivid enough. Good characters have to
> be constructed, not copied from actuality...
>
> One of the toughest jobs we ask of our readers is to see the characters
> vividly and sympathise with them. Consider: all your readers have to go
> by are some symbols printed on a sheet of paper. From these symbols,
> readers must recognize letters of the alphabet , make the letters into
> words, derive meaning from the words, link the meanings into sentences.
> From that point, readers must make an even more amazing leap of faith
> or intuition of some kind: they must use their own imagination to
> picture -- physically and emotionally -- a person inside their own head.
> And they must believe this imagined person is somehow real -- and even
> care about him.
>
> Readers need all of the help they can get to perform this arduous
> imaginative-emotional task. They have a lot to see through to get the
> job done even imperfectly.
>
> To help them, you can't simply transcribe what you see and know about a
> real person. You have to construct something that is far bigger than
> life, far more exaggerated. Then, if you do your job of exaggeration
> extremely well, your readers will see your gross exaggeration dimly, but
> well enough to think, "This constructed character looks like a real
> person to me."
>
> Good fictional characters, in other words, are never ever real people.
> Your idea for a character may begin with a real person, but to make him
> vivid enough for your readers to believe in him, you have to exaggerate
> tremendously; you have to provide shortcut identifying characteristics
> that stick out all over him, you have to make him practicalluy a monster
> -- for readers to see even the dimmest outlines. (p 17 - 18)
>
> ***** end bulk quote *****
>
> Okay, Keith, I paraphrased the above as:
> "Suffice it to say that good novels are made of characters that have to be bigger than life."
>
I know this thread goes on, but I've never hesitated to jump in before
everyone has spoken...it's one of the things I've learned to do as an
editor...one who lets characters change if the change is in the
context of the story. But that's not what I'm referring to.
I studied with Jack Bickham, edited him, and taught for him as a guest
lecturer.
Jack's approach was one on which we disagreed, vehemently and often.
He taught a very basic approach, one that was aimed almost entirely at
writers who wanted to break in, writers who were specializing (if they
thought about it at all) in category fiction: the rules there are a
little different, as often because of unforgiving fans who don't allow
an author to go beyond the set formulć.
It was, in theory, an 'easy' approach: follow this rule and you can't
go wrong in terms of what category editors expect and category readers
demand.
That said, he was successful at what he did; lots, many, humungous
numbers, of his students were published in their category of choice.
And Jack recognized exactly what he was doing; he tried, eventually,
in his writing, to go beyond his own lessons.
Teachers are wonderful assets, but they are human.
Michael
mseidman
> Newton Love wrote:
> > Bickham, Jack M., "The 38 Most Common Fiction Writing Mystakes (and How
> > To Avoid Them), Writer's Digest Books, Cincinnatti OH, 1992.
>
> > be constructed, not copied from actuality...
>
>
> just plain wrong.
Judi,
It's not quite that easy, but on a scale of one to ten, you're closer
to nine.
One of the faults I've found in writers is that they insist that,
"This is the way it happened" or "this is what was said, I was there,"
or, "this guy is my neighbor, so I know I have it right."
Even in the most realistic kinds of fiction, enhancement is necessary.
It's a matter of degree, usually. Most conversations overheard in a
bar are boring, but they're worth listening to for a writer, so that
s/he can use the basics, the PSYCHOLOGY, of it for their own purposes.
The same can be said for character.
Michael
mseidman
> "J&J" <Jr...@gbronline.com> wrote in message
> news:3C56AC0C...@gbronline.com...
>
> >
> > Newton Love wrote:
> > > Bickham, Jack M., "The 38 Most Common Fiction Writing Mystakes (and How
> > > To Avoid Them), Writer's Digest Books, Cincinnatti OH, 1992.
>
>
> series about a tennis player/CIA spy named Brad Smith. They were kind of
> fun but well, they had no soul.
>
> If I have to trust a writing teacher, I'd go with Larry Block, myself.
> But my take on this whole "teaching writing", strictly as a reader, is
> that there ain't no magic formula (and if there were and it was bottled,
> it would probably get moldy really fast) but when it works...it's good.
You've got that right, Sarah, the part about the magic formula, and
while Larry's good, well, I could argue with some of his stuff, too.
And having edited both....
I was the editor of, and helped create, the Brad Smith series. And
there's no question: there was no soul. I could just shuck that off
and say that as Jack was writing them he was also dying and, editor or
not, I was doing something for a friend. But there was no soul, and
none was meant or intended: he was writing for a particular part of
the market and by and large that market didn't need soul, they just
needed to fulfill a need. He succeeded, I guess: even without soul,
you read them. They were kind of fun. That's all he was trying to
do: give you some fun, and give himself some.
Win/win.
Michael
mseidman
> in article 3C5712B0...@toad.net, Newton Love said:
>
>
>
> >> And for god's sake, stop quoting writing teachers.
> >>
> > Sure thing. Do my editors count too?
>
> I'll get back to you on that.
>
>
Editors only count insofar as they can say no...to you. If you hear
something from an editor, you can say that editor doesn't like
something. (I hate adverbial dialogue tags. I hate all dialogue tags
excepting "said." And there are times I'll allow them. Actually,
I've allowed them in Keith's work. But he has a sense of humor and
they work on that level, at least for me, and, hey, I'm the one who
counted.
Michael
mseidman
> >Look, I'm just starting out. Was it this brutal for you when you
> >started on your path?
>
> THIS is brutal? Oh, sweetheart, wait till you actually have editors.
>
Jane,
While I never edited you, I did edit Bill. He never came home with
bruises, did he? Well, that once, but....
Michael
mseidman
>
> I wonder what happened to Bickham's own 65 novels? SOunds to me like he's
> probably writing Harlequins under several pseudonyms (which would definitely
> explain his stylistic point of view).
>
>
He finally succumbed to a cancer that had been eating away at him for
about ten or fifteen years.
He never wrote Harlequins, but only, I'd say, because he didn't think
about that kind of story as one he wanted to tell.
He was not going to be a writer whose work would last, but he was, all
things considered, a damned fine teacher who inspired and drove many
people to the realization of their dreams. And more than anything
else, that counted to him.
And if you ever see, or your kids see, or whomever, a movie called THE
APPLE DUMPLING GANG, that was his. It may not be much, to some minds,
but it's a hell of a lot more than most of us get....
Michael
mseidman
> "JaneHadd" <jane...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020130062318...@mb-mi.aol.com...
> >
> > Professor Bickham claims 65 published novels. When I hit Amazon, however,
> > all the inprint books listed under his name were how-to books out of Writer's
> > Digest Press. All the novels are out of print, and the most recent one was in
> > print in 1988--but not originally published then, as it is a reprint edition.
> >
> > So far, I'm not impressed.
>
> I don't think Amazon is correct. Bickham, AFAIK, had a book published as
> recently as 1998 or '99--it had a female protagonist and was called
> Murder in Oklahoma, I think. Set at a university in OK.
>
> But like I said in another post, I read a few of his tennis novels. Fun,
> but kind of facile.
>
under the name Jack Miles. Again, they were fun, they were written
for an audience that was carefully targeted...and I published them
because of what he'd done for me. May not have made business sense,
but I've never claimed to be a businessman.
Michael
mseidman
> >Here is a source for the above remark. He a profeesor for more than
> >twenty years teaching all types of writing, including professional
> >writing courses.
> >
>
>
>
>
> Professor Bickham claims 65 published novels. When I hit Amazon, however,
> all the inprint books listed under his name were how-to books out of Writer's
> Digest Press. All the novels are out of print, and the most recent one was in
> print in 1988--but not originally published then, as it is a reprint edition.
>
> So far, I'm not impressed.
>
How many writers, not great writers, just the kind who make a living
writing and then die at their keyboards, stay in print? If we're
using that as the rule, we're in deep, deep doo-doo.
Michael
mseidman
> No offense, but you don't sound like you know much about publishing, or
> writing for that matter. If there's a hole in a work, it's the writer's
> fault, not the editors. In most cases, the writer has the final word.
> Particularly when I've read in this group that the writer dashes them
> off in a month -- then it's definitely the writer's fault. Maybe the
> writer should spend a little more time at their craft, I furiously said
> ... then mumbled ...
Sorry, but the editor's function is to help the writer write the best
book s/he is capable of at the moment; the function of the copyeditor
is to make sure nothing embarrasses anyone involved.
The author/editor relationship is a collaboration; writers can make
the final decision...editors can refuse to publish the book (it's in
the contract). Writers who know anything listen, discuss, debate, and
find a way to make it work.
Stephen King, Heinlein, some of the others may be able to silence
their editors...but it's been ages since I've read any of their work
with pleasure.
Michael
Joyleen Seymour
mseidman wrote:
>
(snip)
>
>
> And if you ever see, or your kids see, or whomever, a movie called THE
> APPLE DUMPLING GANG, that was his. It may not be much, to some minds,
> but it's a hell of a lot more than most of us get....
>
> Michael
Saw that movie in the drive-in when I was a kid (now guess how old I am!) Loved that movie. :-)
Joy
Melissa
> And if you ever see, or your kids see, or whomever, a movie called THE
> APPLE DUMPLING GANG, that was his. It may not be much, to some minds,
> but it's a hell of a lot more than most of us get....
>
> Michael
Wasn't that a Don Knotts movie? I think I saw it when I was a kid.
Melissa
JaneHadd
>APPLE DUMPLING GANG, that was his. It may not be much, to some minds,
>but it's a hell of a lot more than most of us get....
>
True enough, but I still say that that advice to make characters "larger than
life" is damned bad, and pretty much a negation of most of what's best about
the modern (i.e., post WWI) novel in English.
Jane Haddam
JaneHadd
>
>How many writers, not great writers, just the kind who make a living
>writing and then die at their keyboards, stay in print? If we're
>using that as the rule, we're in deep, deep doo-doo.
>
>Michael
Well...take the thread in context. The guy was being thrown up as an
"expert" whose advice was inherently more important than the professional
instincts of actual working writers, apparently on the assumption that
"experts" make the "rules" that should then be applied to (in this specific
case) Blindsighted in order to judge whether the book was "flawed" or not.
He was a personal friend of yours and you say he helped you and that's all
valid--BUT given the situation in the above paragraph, I'd need at least the
professional success of a Grafton or, say, a Harlan Ellison before I'd even
consider accepting his pronouncements as the basis for any such judgment.
And that's in spite of the fact that I think ALL novels are flawed.
Jane Haddam
Mystmoush
"Cheer up! When it's cold and it's frigid,
you won't miss that digit."
Eileeeeenn from OH (always wanted to write for Hallmark)
Mystmoush
>and thats my thoughts from a Rainy day in England.
>
>Best Regards
>
>
>Al
>
Goober Dan
ell...@webtv.net
when it is "time">>
Oh, boy-- if this were true I would have written about four books.
Ellen
ell...@webtv.net
TOE? >>
<<Ha! Laura wakes up in a bathtub full of ice...>> Bill Burgess
Hahahahaha! I mean--euwww, that's awful.
Ellen
ell...@webtv.net
<<AT this point in the investigation you should be aware of your
constituional rights. I highly recommend you shut up and get an
attorney.....>>
Duss--tyyyyy!!! Help!
Ellen (100% absolutely not guilty)
Newton Love
>KS wrote: << As "the writer," I'd like to set the record straight. While it is true that I wrote the basic story for Blindsighted in one month, it was not put into production the day after. Other people read the book, it was edited, and I rewrote sections. This is how the publication process works, which perhaps some of you do not know.
>
>As for the time element, I'm a fast writer, but I'm also a very careful writer. Different authors work at different speeds, and I think it's arrogant for a person to judge--or penalize--an author based on how quickly or slowly that person thinks the author should work.
>
>In the end, I am the one responsible for my book, and I stand by my content.
>
>KS >>
>
>Karin, don't rise to the bait. He clearly has (A) Many issues. (B) Far too much time on his hands. He clearly does NOT have (A) Thoughts or opinions of his own. (B) A publishing deal...
>
>
>Mark
>
Dearest Mark, poor confused Mark,
If you believe that KS is replying to me (Newton), then you are
in error.
Please examine your own copy of the ng.
Look for a post by Brad James, <bjam...@earthlink.net>
date Wednesday January 30th at 12:27 AM:
Brad James wrote:
> No offense, but you don't sound like you know much about publishing, or
> writing for that matter. If there's a hole in a work, it's the writer's
> fault, not the editors. In most cases, the writer has the final word.
> Particularly when I've read in this group that the writer dashes them
> off in a month -- then it's definitely the writer's fault. Maybe the
> writer should spend a little more time at their craft, I furiously said
> ... then mumbled ...
>
Brad James was probably saying:
To Newton: No offense, but you don't sound like you know much
about publishing, or writing for that matter.
If there's a hole in a work, it's the writer's
fault, not the editors. In most cases, the writer
has the final word.
(Mark, I would think that you would like Brad's condemnation
of my knowledge. Too bad you said he should be ignored!)
Now, Brad James is probably alluding to KS's post about her working
on preparation for a long time, then writing very quickly in a marathon
session:
Particularly when I've read in this group that the writer
dashes them
off in a month -- then it's definitely the writer's fault.
Maybe the
writer should spend a little more time at their craft, I
furiously said
... then mumbled ...
Mark, you must have been talking about Brad James when you said:
He clearly has (A) Many issues. (B) Far too much time on his hands.
He clearly does NOT have (A) Thoughts or opinions of his own.
(B) A publishing deal...
If you meant to try to reference me, please take the kindness
of actually reading who wrote the post that was referred to.
newton
JLS411
In article <DDL58.6468$By6.7...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, JJ Harmon
<jjha...@mindspring.com/> wrote:
<< You are an idiot. This group is idiotic. The book you're arguing about
isn't worth getting worked up about. What's wrong with you people? >>
Fortunately, we have you to tell us.
Jenni :-)
Laura: Luke? So what are you gonna do now?
Luke: I don't know. I'm not good at much. Maybe politics?
-- "General Hospital"
ell...@webtv.net
<<One of the faults I've found in writers is that they insist that,
"This is the way it happened" or "this is what was said, I was there,"
or, "this guy is my neighbor, so I know I have it right.">>
To which I always reply, "Who cares?"
Ellen
Newton Love
mseidman wrote:
>Newton Love <newt...@toad.net> wrote in message news:<3C562728...@toad.net>...
>
>>Bickham, Jack M., "The 38 Most Common Fiction Writing Mystakes (and How
>>To Avoid Them), Writer's Digest Books, Cincinnatti OH, 1992.
>> <snip>
>>
>
>I studied with Jack Bickham, edited him, and taught for him as a guest
>lecturer.
>
Now I'm listening really close.
>Jack's approach was one on which we disagreed, vehemently and often.
>He taught a very basic approach, one that was aimed almost entirely at
>writers who wanted to break in, writers who were specializing (if they
>thought about it at all) in category fiction: the rules there are a
>little different, as often because of unforgiving fans who don't allow
>an author to go beyond the set formulć.
>
Okay, I understand. BTW, I came to the conclusion myself, after
studying the theory of drama book sold at storymind.com.
What makes a good novel is a long and interesting debate.
What makes a good character is also a long and interesting debate.
Do you remember the sequence that got us here? I do:
Newt: I thought that Jeffrey's explanation of why he had the affair on Sara
was out of character. I believed that the reader should have been
treated to more character development for Jeffrey to be
male/female
(physical/mental sex), rather than the male/male that is chief
of police.
RAMmer: You are wrong.
Newt: I really believe that good novels are made of great characters.
If the reader is to become involved with them, the have to be
explained. They have to be bigger than life.
RAMmer: I hope that you don't teach writing.
Newt: I got the idea from a teacher.
RAMmer: You are ignorant and niave. Bickham is a nobody. You are too.
Fine. I m a nobody. As Mark noted in another post, I don't have a book deal.
Heck! I just started marketing after Thanksgiving 2001. It's only been
two months! I don't know anyone in the business. I have no person to
give it to their good friend the (agent/editor/publisher).
I say two months is too soon to tell If I have a novel.
I appreciate the tenor of your remarks, and will think about them.
I am going to put them in my day-planner so I can read them on
breaks.
>Teachers are wonderful assets, but they are human.
>
>Michael
>
Yeah, to bad they aren't infallible like most RAMmers.
When I am perfect, I still may not be accepted here.
Thanks again Michael. BTW, the above two lines were not
meant for you. 9-)
newt
Newton Love
>>Jane, Jane, Jane,
>>
>>How many writers, not great writers, just the kind who make a living
>>writing and then die at their keyboards, stay in print? If we're
>>using that as the rule, we're in deep, deep doo-doo.
>>
>>Michael
>>
>
> Well...take the thread in context. The guy was being thrown up as an
>"expert" whose advice was inherently more important than the professional
>instincts of actual working writers, apparently on the assumption that
>"experts" make the "rules" that should then be applied to (in this specific
>case) Blindsighted in order to judge whether the book was "flawed" or not.
>
No, I was replying to a RAMmer who replied to my post with:
"I hope that you aren't a writing teacher."
I replied with a quote from a teacher, who Michael said was a good teacher,
who inspired many to follow their dreams.
If you are going to do the courtesy of explaining my post to Michael,
please take the thread in actual context.
newton
Sarah Weinman
news:cbe49b91.02013...@posting.google.com...
> Judi,
>
> It's not quite that easy, but on a scale of one to ten, you're closer
> to nine.
[snip]
>
> Michael
Hey Michael, since it seems no one else has said it, welcome out of
lurkdom and hope you'll keep posting here.
Sarah
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
BLIND 321
Ellen (100% absolutely not guilty) >>
If the banner does not fit, you must drink.
Ellen
Sarah Weinman
news:cbe49b91.02013...@posting.google.com...
> Jack was long dead by then. I did do some books with him at Walker,
> under the name Jack Miles. Again, they were fun, they were written
> for an audience that was carefully targeted...and I published them
> because of what he'd done for me. May not have made business sense,
> but I've never claimed to be a businessman.
>
> Michael
How odd--usually I recall when authors die but I'd had no idea of
Bickham's. In any case I didn't want to come down hard on him at all,
because I certainly enjoyed the Brad books, espec since I'm a tennis fan
and I thought it was cool to have a series of tennis mysteries.
Sarah Weinman
news:Mq_58.14224$DE3.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > --
> I do have a copy (unread) of "Murder at Oklahoma" by Jack M. Bickham
> bought at a library sale. The copyright date is 1998.
>
> Dave
Aha--and considering how long books are in the queue, I guess it must
have been his last book published. And IIRC it was meant to be the first
in a series...
Sarah Weinman
> And that's in spite of the fact that I think ALL novels are flawed.
>
> Jane Haddam
Well if the perfect novel was published, why would anyone bother trying
to write another one?