Reference material
zonker
what people would recommend.
Peace
Zonker
Mauro
"zonker" <rahma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154055714.0...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> I was wondering what reference books people had for thier writing, and
> what people would recommend.
I recommend keeping a copy of Strunk and White's _The Elements of Style_
handy. In fact, I have two copies, one for home and one for work. Section
IV, "Words and Expressions Commonly Misused," is worth the price of the
whole book. This book will also help you put your commas in the right
places, help you to not confuse "its" with "it's," and will tell you when to
use "compare to" and when to use "compare with." Just make sure you get the
fourth edition -- or fifth, if it has been recently released -- and not the
recently rereleased original 1918 version.
For more scholarly writing, you will want a copy of either the _MLA
Handbook_ by Gibaldi or one of the Kate Turabian manuals. If you only write
fiction or poetry, then skip these.
A dictionary -- or computer with internet access and a link to
http://www.dictionary.com/ -- is very helpful and a thesaurus can come in
handy sometimes.
I keep a notebook of suggestions from previous critiques people have written
of my stories, helpful suggestions printed out from this newsgroup (I'm
posting from rec.arts.sf.composition), and a few other general reminders
that I can leaf through if I'm having trouble getting my brain into the
writing groove.
I also keep my "ideas" notebook handy, because 1) I never know when
inspiration will strike and 2) sometimes I'll discover that what I thought
was two or more different stories actually turn out to be different aspects
of the same story, and I want to have my notes on the story I didn't think I
was writing close at hand.
I hope that helps, and I look forward to reading other suggestions.
David Friedman
"zonker" <rahma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was wondering what reference books people had for thier writing, and
> what people would recommend.
Google.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
Carl Dershem
@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
> I was wondering what reference books people had for thier writing, and
> what people would recommend.
A good dictionary, a good thesaurus, Strunk & White, a decent encyclopedia
(often available used for cheap), and all of my books from college (15
years worth), plus other stuff collected over the decades, and a fast
internet connection.
And a roomfull of friends with expertise in just about anything you can
name.
cd
--
The difference between immorality and immortality is "T". I like Earl
Grey.
Zeborah
zonker <rahma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was wondering what reference books people had for thier writing, and
> what people would recommend.
Currently I have a Danish-English dictionary, a Danish grammar, a couple
of Scandinavian histories, and "A Description of the Northern Peoples"
which is essentially a 16th century encyclopedia of Sweden. I
supplement these with Wikipedia in various languages and Google.
(My Danish, previously non-existent, is improving steadily and at some
point I may try to dive back into Hamarkroeniken, although alternatively
I may remind myself that haphazardly-spelled medieval Norwegian is not
as conducive to the "hope I can find a cognate of the word in my
Danish-English dictionary" technique as Swedish and modern Norwegian
have been.)
More generally I have a hot-key set to Dictionary, an application for
MacOS X which includes a thesaurus. Dictionary and Google, those are
the main ones.
Zeborah
--
Gravity is no joke.
http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/
Bill Swears
When I'm feeling a little poetic, I recommend Peter Benchley's _The Girl
of the Sea of Cortez_ This seemed like a blockbuster writer setting out
to prove that he could really write, and is one of my favorite books.
If I want a scene to fair thunder along, brimming with tension, I look
at Cherryh's _Hellburner_.
If I want near Hemingwayesque sparsity with more current language, I
might look to Friedman's _Harald_, but I'm going to wait a few months to
test that.
I like the Random House Dictionary of the English Language.
For academic writing, my local university uses the APA manual of style.
Yes, The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association.
Don't ask me why.
Bill
--
Bill Swears
Ever Inappropriate, always contrite, and now... Ironic! How cool is that?
Ourdebate.com is lifting free debate between writers and diluting it
with advertising.
rec.arts.sf.composition is a USENET group, and can be accessed for free
without the adds.
Ourdebate.com therefore sucks: the life from discourse, and dribbles:
deceit when integrity would have worked just as well.
Zeborah
> For academic writing, my local university uses the APA manual of style.
> Yes, The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association.
> Don't ask me why.
For academic writing, the APA style is very common across a number of
disciplines.
Logan Kearsley
> I was wondering what reference books people had for thier writing, and
> what people would recommend.
Stephen Gillett's _World-Building_. Very handy for designing alien
planets and solar systems and stuff. Not going to be universally
helpful, but nigh indispensible where applicable.
-l.
Bill Swears
> Bill Swears <wsw...@gci.net> wrote:
>
>> For academic writing, my local university uses the APA manual of style.
>> Yes, The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association.
>> Don't ask me why.
>
> For academic writing, the APA style is very common across a number of
> disciplines.
>
> Zeborah
about getting yet another style manual, when the one thing none of them
does is add style.
Bill
--
Bill Swears
Ever Inappropriate, always contrite, and now... Ironic! How cool is that?
Ourdebate.com is lifting free debate between writers and diluting it
with advertising.
rec.arts.sf.composition is a USENET group, and can be accessed for free
without the ads.
Sea Wasp
> I was wondering what reference books people had for thier writing, and
> what people would recommend.
Aside from Google, the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Michelle Bottorff
> I was wondering what reference books people had for thier writing, and
> what people would recommend.
I have a five inch thick unabridged Webster dictionary that's about
forty years old that I use a lot.
Other than that the reference book I use most often is called "The Loom
of Language". It is a book on linguistics that has a basic vocabulary
in eight languages in it, all charted out so that you can see the
similarities/differences between four germanic languages and then again
between four romantic ones.
Other reference books I own and use are the _Writer's Guide to Building
a Science Fiction Universe_, and _Alexander the Great and the Logistics
of the Macedonian Army_ (I hope I got that one right, I did it from
memory.)
I own a Strunk and White. I don't think I ever use it. Maybe I should,
but I never find myself thinking, "Oh! I should look that up in my
Strunk and White." Out of curiousity, for those of you who claim to use
Strunk and White as a reference, what sorts of things send you running
to that particular book?
--
Michelle Bottorff -> Chelle B. -> Shelby
L. Shelby, Writer http://www.lshelby.com/
Livejournal http://lavenderbard.livejournal.com/
rec.arts.sf.composition FAQ http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html
Judity
"Bartlett's Familiar Quotations" is filled with wonderful lines that
can be turned into stories?
I found something said by Mother Teresa back in 1995 that states
perfectly what my "Home of the Red Fox" is all about. She said, and I
quote in part, "We can cure physical diseases with medicine, but the
only cure for loneliness, despair, and hopelessness is love."
I wonder what kind of story some of you might write from a quote by
Allen Stuart Konigsberg, otherwise known as Woody Allen. He said once,
"It's not that I'm afraid to die. I just don't want to be there when it
happens." What a great science fiction tale this would make, don't you
think?
Judity
Home of the Gray Dog - Chapter 12 written on Saturday, 07/22/06
http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1131316
http://judity.Writing.Com/
Patricia C. Wrede
> "zonker" <rahma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1154055714.0...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> I was wondering what reference books people had for thier writing, and
>> what people would recommend.
My reference books come in two varieties: the ones that are specific to
whatever book I happen to be working on right now, and the ones that are
*always* within arm's reach of my computer.
In the latter class are the Oxford English Dictionary, the Oxford American
Dictionary, Fowler's "A Dictionary of Modern English Usage" (Second
Edition -- the third edition wimps out on a bunch of things and lacks the
snarky flavor I like), a Roget's Thesaurus, and Karen Elizabeth Gordon's
first two books: "The Deluxe Transitive Vampire" (for grammar) and "The New
Well-Tempered Sentence" (for punctuation). Strunk and White is supposed to
be up there, too, but it seems to have gone walkabout.
There are also a couple of general references that come in handy for all
sorts of things -- a rhyming dictionary, the New York Public Library Desk
Reference manual, and Katherine Briggs' "An Encyclopedia of Faeries,
Hobgoblins, Brownies, Bogles, and Other Supernatural Creatures." Oh, and
"Color me Beautiful," which is a modern book about what colors look best on
people with different complexions, which I find invaluable for figuring out
what characters would wear who have more taste and fashion sense than I do
(which is most of them).
The specific reference works are currently in flux, as I'm in the process of
changing over to a new WIP. For the new one, I currently have Mark Twain's
"Life on the Mississippi," Pielou's "After the Ice Age;" I expect a lot of
additions as things progress and I figure out which books I'm going to need
to look in most often. For the last one, there's "The 1811 Dictionary of
the Vulgar Tongue," "Tourism in History," "Lost Country Life," and a couple
of books on English social history and the late Regency period. I really
need to get around to re-shelving those...
Patricia C. Wrede
Suzanne Blom
> what people would recommend.
>
would help in writing. A fun one no one's mentioned yet is _The World's
Major Languages_, which has snippets of vocabulary & grammar from the 50
languages the author thinks most important. I disagree with his choices, of
course, but it still gets you far beyond the usual Romance, Germanic, &
Celtic.
Eleanor Breeding
In addition to the books already mentioned, I'd add two by Patricia T.
O'Conner: "Woe Is I: The Grammarphobe's Guide to Better English in
Plain English" and "Words Fail Me: What Everyone Who Writes Should Know
About Writing." I keep both of them by my computer, along with a
dictionary and a thesaurus.
Eleanor
Brian M. Scott
<pwred...@aol.com> wrote in
<news:12ckcub...@corp.supernews.com> in
alt.creative.writing,rec.arts.sf.composition:
[...]
> In the latter class are the Oxford English Dictionary, the
> Oxford American Dictionary, Fowler's "A Dictionary of
> Modern English Usage" (Second Edition -- the third
> edition wimps out on a bunch of things and lacks the
> snarky flavor I like),
The third, by Burchfield, is a travesty that ought not to
bear Fowler's name. To quote from an Amazon review:
Fans of Fowler will be greatly disappointed by this
book, which seems to include nothing written by
Fowler, but displays his name in large letters on
the spine and cover. Burchfield admits in the preface
that he does not understand Fowler's appeal, and does
not even like his work: "The mystery remains: why
has this schoolmasterly, quixotic, idiosyncratic, and
somewhat vulnerable book, in a form only lightly
revised once, in 1965, by Ernest Gowers, retained
its hold on the imagination of all but professional
linguistic scholars for just on seventy years?"
[...]
Brian
Charlie Allery
> what people would recommend.
>
Concise Oxford Dictionary (but the Shorter Oxford is just across the room)
Roget's Thesaurus
Fowler's Modern English Usage (2nd edition), though Fowlers' The King's
English is on the bookshelf
Pear's Cyclopedia (1965)
The first 2 get the most usage.
Charlie
Brian M. Scott
<mbot...@lshelby.com> wrote in
<news:1hj6hgw.lyq0vs2rq0nqN%mbot...@lshelby.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
[...]
> Other than that the reference book I use most often is
> called "The Loom of Language". It is a book on
> linguistics that has a basic vocabulary in eight
> languages in it, all charted out so that you can see the
> similarities/differences between four germanic languages
> and then again between four romantic ones.
Ow. Ow. To quote a linguist acquaintance, 'that one's
utter crap'. If you're going to keep a single book on
linguistics handy, make it David Crystal's Cambridge
Encyclopedia of Language, which, despite the name, is very
readable and not at all a stuffy academic tome.
As long as I'm listing, here are some good books on
linguistics for the intelligent layman:
Crystal's Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language,
which is similar in format to the volume mentioned above.
Ronald Macaulay, _The Social Art_, OUP, 1994; language from
the point of view of a sociolinguist. (And a very nice
fellow; the one formal linguistics course that I ever took
was from him back in the late 60s.)
Guy Deutscher, _The Unfolding of Language_, Metropolitan
Books, 2005; language from the point of view of a historical
linguist.
[...]
Brian
David Friedman
mbot...@lshelby.com (Michelle Bottorff) wrote:
> Other reference books I own and use are the _Writer's Guide to Building
> a Science Fiction Universe_, and _Alexander the Great and the Logistics
> of the Macedonian Army_ (I hope I got that one right, I did it from
> memory.)
I believe you did. As you know, its author is one of the three people my
novel is dedicated to.
> I own a Strunk and White. I don't think I ever use it. Maybe I should,
> but I never find myself thinking, "Oh! I should look that up in my
> Strunk and White." Out of curiousity, for those of you who claim to use
> Strunk and White as a reference, what sorts of things send you running
> to that particular book?
Nothing--I probably haven't looked at it for years. But I read it long
ago at a formative age, and I think the affect remains.
For _Harald_, aside from the logistics book, I used _Saracen Archery_,
an annotated translation of The Complete Manual of Archery for Cadets,
written in the fourteenth century by Taybugha al-Baklamishi al-Yunani.
Most of my other source material was from the web--various sites with
data on trebuchets, both traction and counterweighted, an old
translation of Havamal, and various other odds and ends. I used the web
and Usenet for fairly extensive research on poisons suitable for
polluting a supply of drinking water, but ended up settling on salt as a
simpler solution.
Brian M. Scott
<sue...@execpc.com> wrote in
<news:12ckji1...@corp.supernews.com> in
alt.creative.writing,rec.arts.sf.composition:
[...]
> Well, I have about 5000 books, all of which I bought cuz I
> thought they would help in writing. A fun one no one's
> mentioned yet is _The World's Major Languages_, which
> has snippets of vocabulary & grammar from the 50
> languages the author
Bernard Comrie is actually the editor; the individual
articles are by specialists. (Comrie himself being one: he
wrote the articles on the Slavonic languages in general and
on Russian in particular.)
> thinks most important.
He admitted that choosing the languages was his hardest
task. His main criterion was: 'what languages do I think
the volume's readership would expect to find included?' He
also considered number of speakers, whether a language is
the official language of some independent state, whether a
language is widely used in more than one country, and
whether they have a long-standing literary tradition. There
is a European bias, on account of the expected readership,
but over half the volume deals with non-European languages.
> I disagree with his choices, of course, but it still gets
> you far beyond the usual Romance, Germanic, & Celtic.
Follow-ups to rasfc.
Brian
Jacey Bedford
<pwred...@aol.com> writes
>(Follow-ups set to rec.arts.sf.composition only.)
>
>> "zonker" <rahma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1154055714.0...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>>> I was wondering what reference books people had for thier writing, and
>>> what people would recommend.
>
>My reference books come in two varieties: the ones that are specific to
>whatever book I happen to be working on right now, and the ones that are
>*always* within arm's reach of my computer.
>
>In the latter class are the Oxford English Dictionary,
volume being the operative word. It's the equivalent of about 4
housebricks. I love it.
I've got the Oxford Manual of Style but I don't open it as often as I
should.
I have a whole load of writing-related books up in the library (sigh,
yes I do have a room designated as such, but it needs better shelves and
it doubles up as studio space when we're recording), but in the office
where I work there's about six feet of shelf space with reference books
like 'Writers and Artists' Yearbook (2005)' AND "THE Writer's Handbook'
plus 'Concide Dictionary of Slang', 'Brewer's Phrase and Fable',
'Fowler' 'Oxford Dictionary of New Words' plus 'English Place Names', my
very old (1950s) Penguin edition of 'Roget's Thesaurus' and a bunch of
'how-to' books that I rarely use, though the most useful I found when I
first started were 'Self Editing for Fiction Writers' by Browne and King
and 'Plot' by Ansen Dibell. Other than that I have my 'Child Ballads'
(the single volume 1898 version) and 'Science Reference desk'.
Other than that my books rotate depending on what's important to the
WIS. The SAS Survival Handbook rotates round on a regular basis as does
'By the Sword' (Cohen) 'The Medieval Traveller' (Ohler), three or four
books on arms and armour.
I've just tamed the CD problem and given myself more shelf space by
installing a four drawer chest from Ikea (it was in their bargain room
but the damage to the side doesn't show as it's gone into the fireplace
hole in the chimney breast) which holds about 800 CDs and is already
(almost) full.
Jacey
--
Jacey Bedford
jacey at artisan hyphen harmony dot com
posting via usenet and not googlegroups, ourdebate
or any other forum that reprints usenet posts as
though they were the forum's own
Michelle Bottorff
> > Other than that the reference book I use most often is
> > called "The Loom of Language". It is a book on
> > linguistics that has a basic vocabulary in eight
> > languages in it, all charted out so that you can see the
> > similarities/differences between four germanic languages
> > and then again between four romantic ones.
>
> Ow. Ow. To quote a linguist acquaintance, 'that one's
> utter crap'. If you're going to keep a single book on
> linguistics handy, make it David Crystal's Cambridge
> Encyclopedia of Language, which, despite the name, is very
> readable and not at all a stuffy academic tome.
The basic vocabulary in eight languages is crap?
(I don't think I've looked at the rest of the book in years and years.
I have another linguistic textbook too, somewhere, but I don't *use* it
really, I just have it.)
Suzanne Blom
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
news:1gi7f7dut3xkq$.kc0ztu3fpss7.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:49:49 -0500, Suzanne Blom
> <sue...@execpc.com> wrote in
> <news:12ckji1...@corp.supernews.com> in
> alt.creative.writing,rec.arts.sf.composition:
>
>> thought they would help in writing. A fun one no one's
>> mentioned yet is _The World's Major Languages_, which
>> has snippets of vocabulary & grammar from the 50
>> languages the author
>
> Bernard Comrie is actually the editor; the individual
> articles are by specialists. (Comrie himself being one: he
> wrote the articles on the Slavonic languages in general and
> on Russian in particular.)
>
>> thinks most important.
>
> He admitted that choosing the languages was his hardest
> task. His main criterion was: 'what languages do I think
> the volume's readership would expect to find included?' He
> also considered number of speakers, whether a language is
> the official language of some independent state, whether a
> language is widely used in more than one country, and
> whether they have a long-standing literary traditioon.
In number of speakers, though, he does not take into account that some
languages cannot be admitted officially. Until recently, saying that one
spoke Quechua in some Latin American countries was rather like saying one
uses in marijuana in the US--not wise. I am also not sure he recognizes the
literature of Quechua, Nahuatl, & Mayan languages.
There
> is a European bias, on account of the expected readership,
> but over half the volume deals with non-European languages.
>
*whine* But I can get European languages anywhere. *sigh* Still, as I
say, it's useful.
Brian M. Scott
<sue...@execpc.com> wrote in
<news:12cl0r6...@corp.supernews.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
> news:1gi7f7dut3xkq$.kc0ztu3fpss7.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:49:49 -0500, Suzanne Blom
>> <sue...@execpc.com> wrote in
>> <news:12ckji1...@corp.supernews.com> in
>> alt.creative.writing,rec.arts.sf.composition:
>>> Well, I have about 5000 books, all of which I bought cuz I
>>> thought they would help in writing. A fun one no one's
>>> mentioned yet is _The World's Major Languages_, which
>>> has snippets of vocabulary & grammar from the 50
>>> languages the author
>> Bernard Comrie is actually the editor; the individual
>> articles are by specialists.
[...]
>>> thinks most important.
>> He admitted that choosing the languages was his hardest
>> task. His main criterion was: 'what languages do I think
>> the volume's readership would expect to find included?' He
>> also considered number of speakers, whether a language is
>> the official language of some independent state, whether a
>> language is widely used in more than one country, and
>> whether they have a long-standing literary traditioon.
> In number of speakers, though, he does not take into
> account that some languages cannot be admitted
> officially.
Oh, I rather think that he's aware of this; some of his own
work is on Huichol, which, like Nahuatl, is Uto-Aztecan.
If I had my druthers it would include Navajo (Diné bizaad),
Quechua, Nahuatl, Yup'ik, and at least one Australian
language, perhaps Warlpiri. (Ideally Dyirbal as well, since
it has some really fascinating features, but it's almost
dead.)
> Until recently, saying that one spoke Quechua in some
> Latin American countries was rather like saying one uses
> in marijuana in the US--not wise. I am also not sure he
> recognizes the literature of Quechua, Nahuatl, & Mayan
> languages.
I imagine that he's well aware of these literatures, but I
suspect that he's using 'literary tradition' in a narrower
sense here.
[...]
Brian
Brian M. Scott
<mbot...@lshelby.com> wrote in
<news:1hj72ei.1ar9hxp1r4o6rkN%mbot...@lshelby.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>> Other than that the reference book I use most often is
>>> called "The Loom of Language". It is a book on
>>> linguistics that has a basic vocabulary in eight
>>> languages in it, all charted out so that you can see the
>>> similarities/differences between four germanic languages
>>> and then again between four romantic ones.
Romance; romantic's something else again!
>> Ow. Ow. To quote a linguist acquaintance, 'that one's
>> utter crap'. If you're going to keep a single book on
>> linguistics handy, make it David Crystal's Cambridge
>> Encyclopedia of Language, which, despite the name, is very
>> readable and not at all a stuffy academic tome.
> The basic vocabulary in eight languages is crap?
Probably not, though I'd not want to pass judgement one way
or the other sight unseen.
[...]
Brian
Suzanne Blom
You're right: I didn't know that.
> If I had my druthers it would include Navajo (Diné bizaad),
> Quechua, Nahuatl, Yup'ik, and at least one Australian
> language, perhaps Warlpiri. (Ideally Dyirbal as well, since
> it has some really fascinating features, but it's almost
> dead.)
Yes, exactly: Interesting languages not the same old, same old. (On the
other hand, it is one of the books I replaced after the fire.)
>> Until recently, saying that one spoke Quechua in some
>> Latin American countries was rather like saying one uses
>> in marijuana in the US--not wise. I am also not sure he
>> recognizes the literature of Quechua, Nahuatl, & Mayan
>> languages.
>
> I imagine that he's well aware of these literatures, but I
> suspect that he's using 'literary tradition' in a narrower
> sense here.
>
Ah, but I love Quechua poetry, even if I'm not fluent/culturally savvy
enough to catch most of the nuances.
ShellyS
> I was wondering what reference books people had for thier writing, and
> what people would recommend.
>
I have scores of reference books at home. Not just Strunk and White,
which was mentioned, but The New York Public Library's Writer's Guide
to Style and Usage and the Associated Press Stylebook, among others for
grammar and such.
I have lots of dictionaries. Regular ones, as well as thesauri
(including Rodale's The Synonym Finder), picture dictionaries, and so
on. I also have 8 books of names. Also dictionaries of slang, lingo,
and languages other than English. My favorite print dictionary is
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, currently in its 11th ed.
I have reference books for science, with plenty for Mars where my WIR
and its sequel are set. I have reference books for a variety of
subjects, including for ex, a bartender's guide. I don't drink, but
many of my characters do so it's come in handy.
With more reference material going online all the time, I'm slowly
weeding out some of my print reference books, keeping the essentials in
case my online connection goes down.
--Shelly
Al Smith
I'm up to my hips in reference sources. When you are a writer you
can never have too many references. No matter how much you learn,
or how much information you have access to, there are never the
bits you really need when you need them. The Internet and Google
help a lot. However, it is amazing how much you need to know that
isn't to be found on the Internet. That is becoming less true as
time passes. Maybe in five or ten years the Internet will be
enough as an information source.
Patricia C. Wrede
"Al Smith" <inv...@address.com> wrote in message
news:azCyg.134776$A8.73400@clgrps12...
> I'm up to my hips in reference sources. When you are a writer you can
> never have too many references. No matter how much you learn, or how much
> information you have access to, there are never the bits you really need
> when you need them. The Internet and Google help a lot. However, it is
> amazing how much you need to know that isn't to be found on the Internet.
> That is becoming less true as time passes. Maybe in five or ten years the
> Internet will be enough as an information source.
The Internet acts as an information source just fine, right now -- it just
isn't a good *sole* information source. Which is true of pretty much any
information source. When I'm researching for a book, I go to more than one
library, talk to experts, use the Internet, check magazines, look for
documentary films and videos that are relevant...
My list was only the books that are within arm's reach of the computer; I
have a reference library that's rather larger than that, especially if you
count all the books currently out on loan to other authors. :) Of course,
then you have to discount those shelves of books I've *borrowed* from other
authors...I suppose it evens out.
Follow-ups set to rec.arts.sf.composition only.
Patricia C. Wrede
Bill Swears
> "Al Smith" <inv...@address.com> wrote in message
> news:azCyg.134776$A8.73400@clgrps12...
>
>> I'm up to my hips in reference sources. When you are a writer you can
>> never have too many references. No matter how much you learn, or how much
> isn't a good *sole* information source. Which is true of pretty much any
> information source. When I'm researching for a book, I go to more than one
> library, talk to experts, use the Internet, check magazines, look for
> documentary films and videos that are relevant...
>
coverage of secondary issues, etc. However, it annoys me when I know a
reference exists and I can't find it on the web. It always feels as
though somebody is covering up.
Bill
--
Ourdebate.com lift free debate between writers and dilutes it with ads.
rec.arts.sf.composition is a USENET group, and can be accessed for free.
Ourdebate.com therefore sucks (the life from discourse),
and dribbles (deceit when integrity would have worked just as well).
Nicola Browne
news:12cn4sm...@corp.supernews.com
>
> "> The Internet acts as an information source just fine, right now -- it just
> isn't a good *sole* information source. Which is true of pretty much any
> information source. When I'm researching for a book, I go to more than one
> library, talk to experts, use the Internet, check magazines, look for
> documentary films and videos that are relevant...
>
> My list was only the books that are within arm's reach of the computer; I
> have a reference library that's rather larger than that, especially if you
> count all the books currently out on loan to other authors. :) Of course,
> then you have to discount those shelves of books I've *borrowed* from other
> authors...I suppose it evens out.
>
> Follow-ups set to rec.arts.sf.composition only.
>
I only have a couple of dictionaries and a thesaurus by my desk
at all times. I don't own any grammar books apart from the Lynne Truss
thing and the pop up book of grammar which I bought for my kids (Less
useful to me than I'd hoped : ) ) I'm great at buying books
for research, somewhat less good at reading them and totally crap at
using what I've read unless I'm writing something to do with real
history.
With my last novel I was rather paralysed by my ignorance
until I gave myself a talking to and reminded myself that in my story
the point of divergence with real history was 90 years ago. Once I gave
myself permission to make things up it all got a lot easier and lot more
fun.
Nicky
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Mary K. Kuhner
but I don't buy books for that purpose and don't keep them around
when I'm writing (the shelf under the computer is all software
and game books). When I'm actually writing I don't look things
up, so no use having a dictionary around.
Now I'm feeling insecure about this, but well, there it is.
I do own Strunk&White (which I don't like) and _Eats, Shoots
and Leaves_ and _The Reader Over Your Shoulder_ and _A Browser's
Dictionary_ but those are recreational reading--I'd never
look at them while actually writing, because then I'd stop
writing.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Mauro
"Michelle Bottorff" <mbot...@lshelby.com> wrote in message
news:1hj6hgw.lyq0vs2rq0nqN%mbot...@lshelby.com...
> zonker <rahma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I own a Strunk and White. I don't think I ever use it. Maybe I should,
> but I never find myself thinking, "Oh! I should look that up in my
> Strunk and White." Out of curiousity, for those of you who claim to use
> Strunk and White as a reference, what sorts of things send you running
> to that particular book?
When I'm working on a proposal for work or a short story, sometimes I'll
remember that a word I'm using is on the list of frequently misused words,
and I'll flag it and when I go back to revise I will look it up to make sure
that I've used the word correctly or used the correct word. My dyslexia has
made me paranoid in this regard; even when I'm 95% certain that what I've
written is correct, I still verify it in Strunk and White if I can. I find
that it is long enough to cover all the really important stuff, but short
enough that if I have to find something I remember reading in it, I can get
to it pretty quickly.
Sometimes when I'm not in the middle of a writing project -- mostly, my work
is not related to writing -- I'll just leaf through it for reminders of
what good writing looks like, the same way I might leaf through -- or more
often, completely reread -- a favorite novel or magazine article or poem.
It is a work of art in itself, ever sentence and every phrase carefully
crafted to match the overall message. On top of that, it's just full of
useful reminders.
I'm writing this from home right now, and my Strunk and White is in a box
due to some remodelling. I find myself itching to dig it out to find out if
parentheses would be more appropriate in the previous paragraph that the
dashes I used. :-)
HTH,
Mauro
Rich Weyand
>I hardly own anything for reference at all. I have tons of books,
>but I don't buy books for that purpose and don't keep them around
>when I'm writing (the shelf under the computer is all software
>and game books). When I'm actually writing I don't look things
>up, so no use having a dictionary around.
>
>Now I'm feeling insecure about this, but well, there it is.
The only references I used for the WIS are on the web. Wikipedia, as well as
a bunch of specific sources on things like military hardware, solar system
astronomy, geology, and civilian honors and the like. Things like "how many
M1093 trucks will fit in a Globemaster III cargo plane?" and "Which
Australian military units are stationed where, and what is their composition?"
and "What is the hierarchy of civilian honors in Australia?" and "What is the
shape of the continental shelf of Australia?" and other such minutia.
One advantage of here-and-now SF over most fantasy is that you don't need to
invent a lot of stuff. One disadvantage is that, if you want to be accurate,
you have to look it all up. Of course, there are guys like David that are so
into period weapons use that they have to look it all up anyway. ;-)
I did read through the punctuation section of the back of the dictionary
before I started, however, to make sure I got my capitalization of titles
right and that I was fresh on comma/semicolon use.
--
Rich Weyand
Working title "Message Received" complete
WIP: untitled sequel
Dan Goodman
> One advantage of here-and-now SF over most fantasy is that you don't
> need to invent a lot of stuff. One disadvantage is that, if you want
> to be accurate, you have to look it all up.
And if you're setting sf in even the near future, you need to guess
which stuff now in development will turn out to actually come into use.
--
Dan Goodman
All political parties die at last of swallowing their own lies.
John Arbuthnot (1667-1735), Scottish writer, physician.
Journal http://dsgood.livejournal.com
Links http://del.icio.us/dsgood
Ben Crowell
Garner, A Dictionary of Modern American Usage
Patricia C. Wrede
"Mary K. Kuhner" <mkku...@kingman.gs.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:eagkj4$pn3$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
Well, remember, I'm a rolling-reviser precisely because I have to have
what's written *right*, or I can't move on. I mostly don't look stuff up
when I'm writing...but every now and then, I look at a word and it looks
wrong and it's not in the word-processor's spelling checker, so I have to
look it up in the dictionary. Or I write a sentence and it looks funny
somehow, and I know I need some different phrasing, but I can't think what,
so I browse through the example sentences in "The Deluxe Transitive
Vampire." Or somebody's writing a song lyric, and I *have* to get the right
scansion and rhymes, and I need the rhyming dictionary.
Or, on a more-specific-to-WIP basis, I'm writing along and suddenly I come
to a place where I need a detail -- a description of something on the
street, or the right bit of slang, or somebody's clothes -- and I want
something accurate and historical. So I go looking for the right thing,
right then, instead of putting "[insert description here]" and moving on.
Or I get to a point and I remember reading something when I was doing my
research reading that would be *just perfect*...it was on a left-hand page,
about halfway down, near the end of a chapter in *that* book. So I look it
up.
It's not exactly stopping writing to look at books. It's more that the
writing grinds to a stop because there's something missing, which the books
then (sometimes, if I'm lucky) supply, so I can get back to it.
Patricia C. Wrede
Woof
> what people would recommend.
>
> Zonker
>
> http://2000ah.blogspot.com
>
I've seen some interesting responses so far to this thread. Many, however,
seem to be specific to an individual writer's work. That makes a valid
point. There are certain texts and computer programs that are great general
use tools, and then there are reference materials that are specific to your
work. You need both.
I agree wholeheartedly with Strunk & White's Elements of Style for a quick
look at rules. I've used high school or college level English grammar texts
as a must have for the more in depth considerations of a specific grammar
rule when my little Strunk & White's doesn't have a clear enough answer (and
there are such times). I add to this the Chicago Manual of Style. Years
ago when I was a young reporter, I lived by my AP Style Manual, but I don't
have it anymore. Believe it or not, the Writer's Market is a handy tool not
only for researching possible markets, it also contains several articles
that help you format your writing and keep abreast of modern publishing
trends.
Someone mentioned the New York Public Library Desk References. These are
great! If you need to know American or World History, Geography, Geology,
parts of the Constitution, who got the 1985 Best Actor Academy Award, the
Periodical Table of Elements... and so on to a great level. You can get
quick facts on just about anything or any period of time. There is one for
general use, and others for more specific areas.
A good dictionary and thesaurus is a MUST for a writer whether it is on your
desk or on your computer. Each writer has his or her favorite. Find one
your comfortable with. I have Merriam Webster's Unabridged on my computer
and can access it through Microsoft Word (which is also a good tool
considering its spell check, grammar check, writing level and word count
functions - though it is not perfect).
I noticed someone else mentioned a Book of Quotes. This might not be as
necessary for fiction, but it is VERY helpful for non-fiction writing. A
good quote supporting your story is a great filler. Just don't overuse
quotes. One per article is usually a good rule.
Believe it or not, a Bible is also a good reference tool even if your not of
the faith. There may be times when you may want to make a biblical
reference and it's useful for historical reference.
Those who indicated Google as their choice reference material strike a key
point. The internet was designed to be a giant reference tool providing
access to nearly every university in the country and major universities
worldwide. It has grown in leaps and bounds. Despite the excess of
marketing scams and pornography, the Internet remains as one of the most
important reference tools a writer can have in the modern era. Whether you
use Google or some other search engine is up to you.
Beyond these basics and a few other basics some others noted, you should
focus on materials relevant to what you're working on. If you're writing
about an FBI agent with a reputation for finding serial killers, you should
have a book on serial killers. If you're writing about a spy, there are
books about espionage and actual tools of the spy trade. If you're writing
about military operations, find the Janes All the Worlds Whatever relevant
to your story. Janes produces books on tanks, infantry weapons, ships,
aircraft, submarines, missiles, artillery, etc. and provide pictures and
full specs on whatever they're covering. For military books, you can
supplement this work with Tom Clancy's co-authored Non-Fiction books about
military operations.
You should have whatever books it takes to help you create realistic
settings and accurate historical references.
And if you're escaping the real world and writing fantasy, good reference
material includes the assorted books from Wizards of the Coast for the
Advanced Dungeons and Dragons fantasy role playing game. At the very least,
the Players Handbook and the Monster/Monstrous Manual (name changes on this
frequently).
I know it's a bit lengthy, but I hope it contains some info you can use.
Woof
"Woof" <jamesd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:zTUyg.140213$H71.1...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> A good dictionary and thesaurus is a MUST for a writer whether it is on
your
> desk or on your computer. Each writer has his or her favorite. Find one
> your comfortable with.
Now that I have a little more time, allow these minor corrections:
a dictionary AND a thesaurus ARE musts... they are on your desk
Find oneYOU'RE comfortable with.
:}
I could always attack the preposition at the end of the sentence but
regardless of proper form it's okay for common use.
The old golden rule: A Preposition is a word you should never end a sentence
With.
:-)
This is why I never rush and always edit my manuscripts - unlike my email.
Mary K. Kuhner
Woof <jamesd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>A good dictionary and thesaurus is a MUST for a writer whether it is on your
>desk or on your computer. Each writer has his or her favorite.
Perhaps surprisingly, not all writers find this to be the case; I can't
find any use for a thesaurus at all. I'm not comfortable using words
I don't know well (luckily that's a fair number of words) and if I do
know the word it will come to me eventually. And I don't use a
dictionary. If I know that a word is misspelled I can look it up
online, but generally the problem words are ones that look okay to me
but aren't (as my first-readers have been mentioning, "sorceror").
Those take either a reader or a spellchecker.
>Microsoft Word (which is also a good tool
>considering its spell check, grammar check, writing level and word count
>functions - though it is not perfect).
You will want to be very, very careful with the grammar checker; it
proposes some things which are not just questionable but completely
wrong. (A bank once found that it had changed a complex sentence
stating, in part, "Loans are not to be given under the following
circumstances" to "Loans are to be given under the following
circumstances." I have seen that bug myself with a different
sentence.) I don't think it's useful, myself, unless you have
a characteristic error that you are sure you want to fix (mine
is "which" and "that"). Most of its rules should be turned off
for fiction: "no sentence fragments" makes a hash of dialog,
for example.
>If you're writing about a spy, there are
>books about espionage and actual tools of the spy trade.
I have a Loompanics book on "How to Bodyguard" that was
quite helpful for writing my security-guard character. I could
use some more how-to books of that kind, actually.
The newsgroup net.answers has some amazing FAQs, like one on
how an autopsy works, and one on rigor mortis and other
aspects of death. Also stuff on raising various animals,
farming techniques, and every hobby imaginable.
>And if you're escaping the real world and writing fantasy, good reference
>material includes the assorted books from Wizards of the Coast for the
>Advanced Dungeons and Dragons fantasy role playing game. At the very least,
>the Players Handbook and the Monster/Monstrous Manual (name changes on this
>frequently).
I'd put this under "use with caution". They don't distinguish well
between stuff lifted from folklore and stuff lifted from recent
fiction; also, many readers react badly to obvious D&Disms. (If
you are writing for WoTC that's another matter--then you need to
own a good collection of this stuff and refer to it heavily.)
If you want reliability on names of weapons and armor types,
this is the wrong source. (Nice idea-source for monsters, though.)
_A Field Guide to the Little People_ is good for European
fairy lore. Books of fairy tales, especially for cultures
other than Western Europe, can be very helpful too. A good mythology
guide can be inspiring. (D&D materials are not, in my experience,
good for mythology either real-world or invented; they tend to
be very flat, with a few possible exceptions in the Forgotten
Realms. And those are not free for use, though they may provide
inspiration.)
Fantasy doesn't get you away from needing the real world; you may
well want a reference on horses or other riding animals (Q: how
far can a camel caravan go without water? A: Much less far than
you might think.) Medieval buildings (floorplans and drawings
can be especially good inspiration. Weapons, armor, military
strategy and tactics, if those are relevant to your story.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Dan Goodman
> And if you're escaping the real world and writing fantasy, good
> reference material includes the assorted books from Wizards of the
> Coast for the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons fantasy role playing
> game. At the very least, the Players Handbook and the
> Monster/Monstrous Manual (name changes on this frequently).
1) That's for a different medium. Some of what works in RPGs won't
work in written-to-be-read fiction.
I once critiqued a story whose author had tried to put into the opening
everything which would be seen in the opening shot of a movie.
Everything. It was a lot, it was much harder to read than it would
have been to watch, and it slowed things down considerably.
I haven't seen fiction (published or unpublished) which suffered from
equivalent attempts to do things just like an RPG. Or maybe I have,
and didn't know enough to realize that was the problem.
2) Dungeons and Dragons is somewhat derivative. I would recommend
going back at least to the fantasy it was rip-- err, derived from, by
Tolkien and others. Or to the stories written, sung, and spoken which
those were based on.
Dan Goodman
> If I know that a word is misspelled I can look it up
> online, but generally the problem words are ones that look okay to me
> but aren't (as my first-readers have been mentioning, "sorceror").
> Those take either a reader or a spellchecker.
If you have a small number of such words, try writing them out on a
sheet of paper -- marking which are the correct and the incorrect
spellings -- and keeping it near your computer.
Ironically, one word whose spelling I can't remember is "mnemonist".
David Langford
>I love using the internet to pull up quick definitions, find superficial
>coverage of secondary issues, etc.
People who know I'm involved with a new edition of the SF Encyclopedia have
been sending the link to this =Onion= story about "the competition" ...
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902
Dave
--
David Langford | http://ansible.co.uk/
Latest nonfiction: =The SEX Column and other misprints= (Cosmos, 2005)
Latest fiction: =Different Kinds of Darkness= (Cosmos, 2004)
Chris Dollin
>
> "Woof" <jamesd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:zTUyg.140213$H71.1...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>> A good dictionary and thesaurus is a MUST for a writer whether it is on
> your
>> desk or on your computer. Each writer has his or her favorite. Find one
>> your comfortable with.
>
> Now that I have a little more time, allow these minor corrections:
>
> a dictionary AND a thesaurus ARE musts... they are on your desk
They are not "musts".
There are times when I want a thesaurus, and if I'm going to break
flow anyway then going and fetching one isn't that much extra
overhead, and I can have a drink and a stretch and a pee; but I
don't need one sitting on the desk, I don't have the call for
"a word sort-of-like this one, it's on the tip of my ... lips ...
chin ... thingy, brain, that's it!" very often.
A dictionary is for spell-checking and for description. The former
can get done post-hoc anyway.
If a needed one so often I wanted it on my desk, I'd probably
want it on my desktop, and it would have to be at least as
easy/useful as the web.
--
Nine And Sixty Hedgehog
Notmuchhere: http://www.electric-hedgehog.net/
Otherface: Jena RDF/Owl toolkit http://jena.sourceforge.net/
Gerry Quinn
jamesd...@sbcglobal.net says...
>
> A good dictionary and thesaurus is a MUST for a writer whether it is on your
> desk or on your computer. Each writer has his or her favorite. Find one
> your comfortable with. I have Merriam Webster's Unabridged on my computer
> and can access it through Microsoft Word (which is also a good tool
> considering its spell check, grammar check, writing level and word count
> functions - though it is not perfect).
All good advice (as was the rest of your post), except for one thing.
Word's grammar checker is only worth leaving on if you enjoy its brand
of unintentional comedy.
As far as I can see the only things it spots with even 50% accuracy are
sentence fragments, and everyone uses them occasionally.
Maybe it is more useful for those whose initial grammar tends to be
poor.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
e...@electric-hedgehog.net says...
> Woof wrote:
> > Now that I have a little more time, allow these minor corrections:
> >
> > a dictionary AND a thesaurus ARE musts... they are on your desk
>
> They are not "musts".
>
> There are times when I want a thesaurus, and if I'm going to break
> flow anyway then going and fetching one isn't that much extra
> overhead, and I can have a drink and a stretch and a pee; but I
> don't need one sitting on the desk, I don't have the call for
> "a word sort-of-like this one, it's on the tip of my ... lips ...
> chin ... thingy, brain, that's it!" very often.
I didn't appreciate them in the past, but I find the online thesaurus
useful in editing when I want to avoid using the same word twice.
- Gerry Quinn
Mary K. Kuhner
Gerry Quinn <ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
>Word's grammar checker is only worth leaving on if you enjoy its brand
>of unintentional comedy.
>As far as I can see the only things it spots with even 50% accuracy are
>sentence fragments, and everyone uses them occasionally.
It's more accurate on "which versus that" than I am. Somewhere
in my writing past I internalized a rule that the only difference
between these words, in most contexts, is euphony and I am therefore
free to pick whichever one flows best in the sentence. Editors
frequently disagree, so I use the grammar checker to spot potential
issues--though I don't always, or even often, take Word's advice
as it is frequently wrong. Complex sentences confuse it very
badly.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Patricia C. Wrede
"Woof" <jamesd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:zTUyg.140213$H71.1...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> And if you're escaping the real world and writing fantasy, good reference
> material includes the assorted books from Wizards of the Coast for the
> Advanced Dungeons and Dragons fantasy role playing game. At the very
> least,
> the Players Handbook and the Monster/Monstrous Manual (name changes on
> this
> frequently).
You were doing fine until you got to this (though I disagree that *anything*
is a "must" for *all* writers, other than some sort of writing implements
and something to write on),
But in these two cases, I disagree violently and specifically. Unless
you're actually writing game-based fantasy, these are *terrible* references
for a writer. All of the games have a mix of "real" mythological creatures,
creatures lifted with permission from recent fiction, and
made-up-for-the-game mythological creatures in their manuals. You can make
your book completely unpublishable by using the wrong creature in your
story, because the recent-fiction and made-up-for-the-game ones are not only
copyrighted, but sometimes trademarked, and the games defend these and
publishers know it. Nobody is going to buy a book that risks that kind of
lawsuit.
Furthermore, even the mythological creatures have usually been adapted for
the games, often in ways that contradict the original myths. An audience of
teenaged gamers may not know this, and an audience of devoted adult gamers
may be able to overlook it, but an audience of fantasy *readers*, many of
whom are familiar with the original myths and legends and folk tales and
most of whom *aren't* gamers, is *not* going to overlook it. This seriously
and unnecessarily limits your audience.
Finally, if you use the original sources, or even references like the
"Oxford Dictionary of English Folklore," "The Dictionary of Classical
Mythology," "Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology, and Legends," you
are more likely to end up with a richly textured and original depiction that
is uniquely *yours*, which is part of what makes readers come back to a
particular writer. The gaming manuals have trimmed away everything that is
unsuited to a game, which is fine if what you want to do is *play* a game.
But what makes a good game and what makes a good story are often very
different things.
I believe some of the gaming manuals do cite references; if you have one
that does, I'd make a list of the references and go read those, instead.
Otherwise...these aren't good references, unless you're writing for
"Forgotten Realms" or Wizards of the Coast or one of the other game-based
specialty series.
Follow-ups set to rec.arts.sf.composition only.
Patricia C. Wrede
Tina Hall
> One advantage of here-and-now SF over most fantasy is that you
> don't need to invent a lot of stuff.
I'd say that the advantage of fantasy over here-and-now SF is that you
can invent a lot of stuff. :)
> One disadvantage is that, if you want to be accurate, you have to look
> it all up.
That's also a disadvantage in fantasy when there's something from the
real world intruding.
--
Tina
WIR: Magic Earth series.
WISuspension: Seasons & Elements trilogy.
Posted to Usenet newsgroup rec.arts.sf.composition.
Tina Hall
[references to use for writing]
> And if you're escaping the real world and writing fantasy, good
> reference material includes the assorted books from Wizards of
> the Coast for the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons fantasy role
> playing game. At the very least, the Players Handbook and the
> Monster/Monstrous Manual (name changes on this frequently).
This rubs me the wrong way. I want to ask: What for? Writing fantasy
doesn't mean it automatically includes anything even only remotely
smelling of AD&D.
Sea Wasp
> Woof <jamesd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> [references to use for writing]
>
>
>>And if you're escaping the real world and writing fantasy, good
>>reference material includes the assorted books from Wizards of
>>the Coast for the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons fantasy role
>>playing game. At the very least, the Players Handbook and the
>>Monster/Monstrous Manual (name changes on this frequently).
>
>
> This rubs me the wrong way. I want to ask: What for? Writing fantasy
> doesn't mean it automatically includes anything even only remotely
> smelling of AD&D.
>
I'm a gamer of longer standing than the majority, and I use RPGing
extensively in my writing. And I still agree with the others who think
that the game manuals are potentially even WORSE than useless for
writing purposes. The games are great tools for exploring events and
possibilities, but the rules -- ESPECIALLY for D&D, which has become
its own very clearly delineated subgenre -- are not useful for that at
all.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Woof
"Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:44cc4222$0$725$8046...@newsreader.iphouse.net...
While I recognize the point you're making, I don't fully agree on the D&D
refs for fantasy fiction. Yes, if you're writing fantasy, you need to have
familiarity with the original material such as Tolkien, Arthurian legends,
and so forth. Terry Brooks and others would be good examples of what is
selling and what you can get away with in this genre. Read anything put out
by TOR whether it's good or not. Piers Anthony would be a good read.
However, the topic was reference material. I don't suggest trying to
incorporate the RPG itself into a story. The publishers of D&D have already
attempted this twice in movies and the movies just don't go over for the
general public (actually, they sucked, even with Halle Berry and one of the
Wayans brothers in the cast). But the books themselves provide a good deal
of background information on fantasy settings, the medieval world, and
monsters that the heroes would face in such a setting. While they created
SOME of these monsters, most are taken from classic mythology and folklore
and assorted pieces of classic fiction they ripped off for ideas. Use of
these books, if read through once and then just scanning applicable material
as needed, is good as a reference item. But, no, don't try to make the game
into a story - unless you're writing for WotC.
Sea Wasp
Not really. I've been using those books for many years. I was one of
the playtesters for the third edition. I've used more RPG systems than
you could shake a bazooka at. And of them, D&D may be one of the WORST
to use for reference. It has drawn much of what MAKES it what it is
from the initial wargaming-based design. This is fine as a game,
because to change it too far from those roots would eliminate its own
flavor.
However, the research done on many of the aspects you mention ranges
from sketchy to nonexistent to in-depth, but with NO way of easily
telling which is which. Some elements are very good, some are flat-out
wrong, some are sorta-right but in the game taken totally in the wrong
direction, and so on.
To my mind one of the greatest sins D&D commits is to present the
medieval fallacy as a given -- that is, that you could have all this
magic and god stuff flying around, as obviously as D&D makes it, and
that the societies and worlds would otherwise resemble a (simplified)
version of a medieval world. You wouldn't, and if you want to convince
me otherwise, you'd need a hell of a lot of justification, which D&D
doesn't even TOUCH.
There are SOME RPG manuals which might be usable as references, but
those are not going to be the *D&D manuals. Unless what you're writing
IS a D&D story.
Woof
You disagree violently? Come on now, disagreement is fine, but let's not
get violent.
My suggestion was to use this as a quick ref, not a sole source of
information, but you certainly make some valid points, some I can accept,
some I disagree. In all writing, if you intend to publish, you should do
your homework and be familiar with your market.
For mythology, I like Bulfinch's.(sp?)
My point, however poorly made, was to utilize a quick reference material
relevant to your story. These manuals give you a broad overview of a wide
variety of fantasy creations and can give you some ideas to start with.
But, you are right, don't take the material directly from these books and
plug them in word for word into your story. For that matter, don't take
material directly from ANY book and plug it in. The D&D manuals give you a
collection so you don't have to have a trillion or so more specific books on
your desk. You can (and probably should) have them nearby on the
bookshelves, but a more generalized text for quick ref is, well, handy.
One of the other points I suggested, using the fantasy books as just an
example, was to have source books handy relevant to your settings and
character backgrounds.
Of course, if you're NOT writing fantasy fiction, this doesn't apply at all
and you don't need these refs.
If you're writing about Minneapolis and you've never been there, you might
start with a good map. If you're writing about cops, a book about guns or
police procedures might be at your fingertips.
Woof
"Sea Wasp" <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote in message
news:44CCE7DC...@obvioussgeinc.com...
Don't I see you on rgfd?
I'm sorry you had to playtest 3rd Edition ;-}
If nothing else, this has definitely generated some response.
Mostly negative, in fact. These all have valid arguments.
If majority rules, there you have it.
Of course, in any case, you should decide for yourself what works for you
and what doesn't.
Regarding medieval and fantasy settings (which are NOT synonymous), there
are good books out there specific to castles, armor, medieval weapons, and
so on. In fact, on one of my shelves I have a book specific to medieval
European food. Every time I look through it I'm glad I wasn't around back
then.
Pat Bowne
> In article <zTUyg.140213$H71.1...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
> Woof <jamesd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>A good dictionary and thesaurus is a MUST for a writer whether it is on
>>your
>>desk or on your computer. Each writer has his or her favorite.
>
> Perhaps surprisingly, not all writers find this to be the case; I can't
> find any use for a thesaurus at all. I'm not comfortable using words
> I don't know well (luckily that's a fair number of words) and if I do
> know the word it will come to me eventually. And I don't use a
> dictionary. If I know that a word is misspelled I can look it up
> online, but generally the problem words are ones that look okay to me
> but aren't (as my first-readers have been mentioning, "sorceror").
> Those take either a reader or a spellchecker.
I'm with you. I don't own either, and have never felt the lack. The
reference books I've used most often (which is not often) are Nelson's
'Fishes of the World' and Briggs' 'Abbey Lubbers, Banshees, and Boggarts.'
The reference source I wish I had would be one that explicated the meanings
of Latin names.
I do most other research by asking my neighbors, or rasfc, or by reading the
Chronicle of Higher Education.
Pat
Patricia C. Wrede
>> But in these two cases, I disagree violently and specifically. Unless
>> you're actually writing game-based fantasy, these are *terrible*
> references
>> for a writer.
<snip>
> You disagree violently? Come on now, disagreement is fine, but let's not
> get violent.
"Vehement" might have been a better word choice, I admit. But it doesn't do
full justice to my feelings in this matter.
> My suggestion was to use this as a quick ref, not a sole source of
> information, but you certainly make some valid points, some I can accept,
> some I disagree. In all writing, if you intend to publish, you should do
> your homework and be familiar with your market.
>
> For mythology, I like Bulfinch's.(sp?)
Bulfinch's isn't awful, but I really prefer original sources when I can get
them.
> My point, however poorly made, was to utilize a quick reference material
> relevant to your story. These manuals give you a broad overview of a wide
> variety of fantasy creations and can give you some ideas to start with.
If that's how you use them, that's not so bad, though Sea Wasp has some
points -- you really can't tell what's real and reliable and what isn't,
unless you already have read a whole lot of *other* reference books on the
subject, in which case, you don't really need the manuals. I don't even
think they're a particularly good place to start, myself.
> One of the other points I suggested, using the fantasy books as just an
> example, was to have source books handy relevant to your settings and
> character backgrounds.
>
> Of course, if you're NOT writing fantasy fiction, this doesn't apply at
> all
> and you don't need these refs.
You're also overlooking the fact that there's rather a lot of fantasy that
isn't set in a pseudo-medieval-European background. For a fantasy writer
who's doing modern urban fantasy, like many of Charles de Lint's and Emma
Bull's books, those "references" are useless. For a fantasy writer who's
doing historical fantasy, especially non-European historical fantasy, like
Kara Dalkey's "Blood of the Goddess" trilogy, Barry Hughart's "Bridge of
Birds," or even Caroline Stevermer's and my Kate and Cecy books (which are
European but hardly medieval), they'd be worse than useless. Even for
someone doing historical-medieval/ancient-European fantasy, they're no help
if they want to be accurate. About the only sort of fantasy I can think of
that someone might want something like that for is the pseudo-medieval
fantasy quest novel, and there are better sources.
> If you're writing about Minneapolis and you've never been there, you might
> start with a good map. If you're writing about cops, a book about guns or
> police procedures might be at your fingertips.
A *good* map, yes; but a map is no help if half the street names are wrong,
various bits are not drawn to the same scale, and occasional key features
like lakes and rivers have been left out. A *good* book about guns or
police procedures, yes, but not one that slings together stuff from a
variety of eras and sources and gets half of it wrong.
If you *must* recommend these titles, at least note that they are highly
unreliable and inaccurate and anything in them should be cross-checked
before you use it. Unless, as has been noted, the person is writing for D&D
or WotC, in which case they're vital references indeed.
Patricia C. Wrede
Nicola Browne
>
> > While I recognize the point you're making, I don't fully agree on the D&D
> refs for fantasy fiction. Yes, if you're writing fantasy, you need to have
> familiarity with the original material such as Tolkien, Arthurian legends,
> and so forth. Terry Brooks and others would be good examples of what is
> selling and what you can get away with in this genre. Read anything put out
> by TOR whether it's good or not. Piers Anthony would be a good read.
I think fantasy is a lot wider than that and includes anything
which doesn't fit easily into other categories. I think your idea
of what it is about is too narrow and too unambitious.
I don't think it is about'what you can get away with.'
Nicky
>
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Tina Hall
Allright, that's the practical viewpoint. Others elaborated that, too.
I only disagree with the idea that every fantasy has to be wizards with
spells and heros with swords and deformed monsters. That's the point the
poster (Woof) is _still_ maintaining. And it's such a cliche.
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>Ourdebate.com lift free debate between writers and dilutes it with ads.
lifts
--
Marilee J. Layman
http://mjlayman.livejournal.com/
Dan Goodman
> However, the topic was reference material. I don't suggest trying to
> incorporate the RPG itself into a story. The publishers of D&D have
> already attempted this twice in movies and the movies just don't go
> over for the general public (actually, they sucked, even with Halle
> Berry and one of the Wayans brothers in the cast). But the books
> themselves provide a good deal of background information on fantasy
> settings, the medieval world, and monsters that the heroes would face
> in such a setting.
Sounds like reading books and articles on how to write romance novels
so you can write a book of marriage advice.
While they created SOME of these monsters, most
> are taken from classic mythology and folklore and assorted pieces of
> classic fiction they ripped off for ideas.
Which means that, at very best, they're second-rate. Why read them
when you can read 1) the material they've mined for ideas; 2) the
material _that_ was based on, which allows you to bypass at least two
layers of dumbing-down?
Here are some things which I suspect the AD&D material would not have:
1) Grendel and his mother were descendants of Cain. 2) The Cornish
knockers (known in the US as tommyknockers) were of Jewish ancestry.
3) Much of Europe was, at various times, outside the feudal system. 4)
The term "feudal system" wasn't coined till well after what it
described was pretty well gone.
Dan Goodman
> If you're writing about Minneapolis and you've never been there, you
> might start with a good map.
I would recommend: 1) _The Rough Guide to the USA_; 2) Latest edition
of _The Almanac of American Politics_ (read this one at a library,
because the paperback edition now costs over fifty dollars); 3) webcams
showing Minneapolis scenes; 4) one of the books intended for newcomers
to the area (caution: they're coy about mentioning poor neighborhoods).
Brian M. Scott
<dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote in
<news:44cd3db6$0$722$8046...@newsreader.iphouse.net> in
alt.creative.writing,rec.arts.sf.composition:
[...]
> Here are some things which I suspect the AD&D material would not have:
> 1) Grendel and his mother were descendants of Cain. 2) The Cornish
> knockers (known in the US as tommyknockers) were of Jewish ancestry.
> 3) Much of Europe was, at various times, outside the feudal system. 4)
> The term "feudal system" wasn't coined till well after what it
> described was pretty well gone.
(4) The term 'feudal' has been used in so many different
ways that a good many medieval historians consider it nearly
meaningless.
Brian
Bill Swears
> Sea Wasp <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote:
>> Tina Hall wrote:
>>> Woof <jamesd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> And if you're escaping the real world and writing fantasy, good
>>>> reference material includes the assorted books from Wizards of
>>>> the Coast for the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons fantasy role
>>>> playing game.
>
>> RPGing extensively in my writing. And I still agree with the others
>> who think that the game manuals are potentially even WORSE than
>> useless for writing purposes. The games are great tools for
>> exploring events and possibilities, but the rules -- ESPECIALLY
>> for D&D, which has become its own very clearly delineated
>> subgenre -- are not useful for that at all.
>
> Allright, that's the practical viewpoint. Others elaborated that, too.
>
> I only disagree with the idea that every fantasy has to be wizards with
> spells and heros with swords and deformed monsters. That's the point the
> poster (Woof) is _still_ maintaining. And it's such a cliche.
>
materials is that they aren't useful unless you have enough general
knowledge about the beasts to know when you're invading proprietary
domains. An experienced gamer, or somebody really well versed in the
tropes sword and sorcery, might find them useful, on the level of having
a wall chart with various ghoulies and gnasties to pick from. Perhaps
so you can metaphorically 'throw a dart' to figure out what will attack
your protag next.
My feeling is that if you do this, even if you limit yourself to the
creatures that come from other venues, gamers will know. Then, they
have to decide if it's inspired writing by fen, or schlock from an
outisider who can't be bothered to develop their own milieu.
Bill
--
Ourdebate.com lifts free debate between writers and dilutes it with ads.
rec.arts.sf.composition is a USENET group, and can be accessed for free.
Ourdebate.com therefore sucks (the life from discourse),
and dribbles (deceit when integrity would have worked just as well).
Sea Wasp
I *AM* r.g.f.dnd. Well, not quite, but I'm definitely one of the
Great Old Ones there.
> I'm sorry you had to playtest 3rd Edition ;-}
Why? It's by FAR the best version of D&D ever made, incorporating
many of the fixes I've waited for them to make since they released the
first version in '74.
Zeborah
> Woof wrote:
>
> > If you're writing about Minneapolis and you've never been there, you
> > might start with a good map.
>
> I would recommend: 1) _The Rough Guide to the USA_; 2) Latest edition
> of _The Almanac of American Politics_ (read this one at a library,
> because the paperback edition now costs over fifty dollars); 3) webcams
> showing Minneapolis scenes; 4) one of the books intended for newcomers
> to the area (caution: they're coy about mentioning poor neighborhoods).
Flickr is good for stills. Google Maps would be better for topography
if they could get rid of the damn clouds covering most of Scandinavia.
Zeborah
--
Gravity is no joke.
http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/
Shana Rosenfeld
They cover a lot of the rainforest, too.
The Encarta Atlas has pretty good maps -- and you can scale it up and
down.
--
Shana L. Rosenfeld sh...@westnet.com
http://slrose.livejournal.com
Tina Hall
>>>>> And if you're escaping the real world and writing fantasy,
>>>>> good reference material includes the assorted books from
>>>>> Wizards of the Coast for the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons
>>>>> fantasy role playing game.
(Above left in for context.)
>> I only disagree with the idea that every fantasy has to be
>> wizards with spells and heros with swords and deformed monsters.
>> That's the point the poster (Woof) is _still_ maintaining. And
>> it's such a cliche.
> I think the only issue I have with RPG background items as
> reference materials is that they aren't useful unless you have
> enough general knowledge about the beasts to know when you're
> invading proprietary domains. An experienced gamer, or somebody
> really well versed in the tropes sword and sorcery, might find
> them useful, on the level of having a wall chart with various
> ghoulies and gnasties to pick from. Perhaps so you can
> metaphorically 'throw a dart' to figure out what will attack your
> protag next.
:) No problem at all.
What I do have an issue with is the implication that if you're writing
fantasy, your world can only be one like the setting in AD&D, and If
your world is not that, you're not writing fantasy. I quote Mr. Woof:
"Of course, if you're NOT writing fantasy fiction, this doesn't apply at
all and you don't need these refs."
I just want to yell at that guy very loudly and unintelligibly.
Perhaps he also suggests that the reference for writing science fiction
is a GURPS manual (from what I know there's certainly a wide variety).
> My feeling is that if you do this, even if you limit yourself to
> the creatures that come from other venues, gamers will know.
> Then, they have to decide if it's inspired writing by fen, or
> schlock from an outisider who can't be bothered to develop their
> own milieu.
Guess that's true. Personally, I'd lose interest at the first sign of
any AD&D-like setting for a fantasy story.
Dan Goodman
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:16:02 -0500, Dan Goodman
>
> > Here are some things which I suspect the AD&D material would not
> > have: 1) Grendel and his mother were descendants of Cain. 2) The
> > Cornish knockers (known in the US as tommyknockers) were of Jewish
> > ancestry. 3) Much of Europe was, at various times, outside the
> > feudal system. 4) The term "feudal system" wasn't coined till well
> > after what it described was pretty well gone.
>
> (4) The term 'feudal' has been used in so many different
> ways that a good many medieval historians consider it nearly
> meaningless.
So, what do they do instead to describe 1) the sociopolitical system
which predominated in some places in some parts of the Middle Ages; 2)
the idealizations of it at the time; 3) the idealizations which came
about after it was obsolete?
Brian M. Scott
<dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote in
<news:44cd5f43$0$717$8046...@newsreader.iphouse.net> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:16:02 -0500, Dan Goodman
>>> Here are some things which I suspect the AD&D material would not
>>> have: 1) Grendel and his mother were descendants of Cain. 2) The
>>> Cornish knockers (known in the US as tommyknockers) were of Jewish
>>> ancestry. 3) Much of Europe was, at various times, outside the
>>> feudal system. 4) The term "feudal system" wasn't coined till well
>>> after what it described was pretty well gone.
>> (4) The term 'feudal' has been used in so many different
>> ways that a good many medieval historians consider it nearly
>> meaningless.
> So, what do they do instead to describe 1) the
> sociopolitical system which predominated in some places
> in some parts of the Middle Ages;
Which one(s)?
> 2) the idealizations of it at the time;
Which time?
> 3) the idealizations which came about after it was
> obsolete?
The general answer to all of these, I think, is that the
term is useful only if suitably qualified.
Brian
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> Perhaps he also suggests that the reference for writing science fiction
> is a GURPS manual (from what I know there's certainly a wide variety).
I actually debugged a novel once with _GURPS Psionics_, and wrote to
Steve Jackson to thank him for it. He invited me to look him up at a
con I was planning on intending, and we played tile chess.
I wouldn't recommend a gaming book as a resource for writing in general;
at the same time, I've found that an extensive knowledge of a wide
varity of different gaming systems has been useful to *me*, in ways I
find difficult to articulate.
One of the little games I play with myself on occasion is 'What gaming
system would I run this story in?' The WIE is GURPS Psionics (it's the
sequel to the one I debugged); the far backburnered thing is a homebrew
version of D&D3e (the party is a fighter, a socials-happy rogue, a
goblin ranger, and a druid/barbarian wereparrot); the near backburnered
thing is Traveller; the WnominallyIP used to be Changeling, but I think
Deleria matches it better now that I know Deleria ... Sometimes this
produces some useful thoughts. Other times it's just cat-vacuuming.
--
Darkhawk - H. A. Nicoll - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
They are one person, they are two alone
They are three together, they are for each other
- "Helplessly Hoping", Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young
James A. Donald
> (4) The term 'feudal' has been used in so many
> different ways that a good many medieval historians
> consider it nearly meaningless.
We had this debate before. If you ignore the Marxist
use of the term, "feudal" is a perfectly good and well
defined term. It only becomes a problem if you are
trying to hold discussions that embrace Marxists and non
Marxists.
If you start out with the presupposition that Marxist
historians are a small minority of loons and that it is
impossible to hold rational discussions with them, then
the term "feudal" is necessary and useful.
The only problem with the word is that if one finds
oneself debating Marxists, it is like playing chess with
someone who when his king is put in check, knocks over
the chessboard and accuses you of sleeping with his
wife.
The only problem with the word is that if one uses it in
a way that makes sense and reflects historical
realities, the way it is used 95% of the time, Marxists
are apt to spring out of the woodwork and accuse one of
being an ignorant fool, a loon, and guilty of committing
genocide against some obscure South American tribe, and
furthermore guilty of receiving grant money from
Walmart. And not only that, but Ford's father traded
with the nazis!
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
James Eades
wrote:
>Patricia C. Wrede wrote:
>> "Al Smith" <inv...@address.com> wrote in message
>> news:azCyg.134776$A8.73400@clgrps12...
>>
>>> I'm up to my hips in reference sources. When you are a writer you can
>>> never have too many references. No matter how much you learn, or how much
>> The Internet acts as an information source just fine, right now -- it just
>> isn't a good *sole* information source. Which is true of pretty much any
>> information source. When I'm researching for a book, I go to more than one
>> library, talk to experts, use the Internet, check magazines, look for
>> documentary films and videos that are relevant...
>>
>I love using the internet to pull up quick definitions, find superficial
>coverage of secondary issues, etc. However, it annoys me when I know a
>reference exists and I can't find it on the web. It always feels as
>though somebody is covering up.
>
Ayup. My problem is finding the reference and then having it
disappear on me. Note, this does not mean 'get lost.' It means
disappear - climb into a hole and pull the lid shut, or alter itself
in some minor facet that completely invalidates whatever point I was
going to make with it. I've already lost a wonderful folk tale in
Mexico and a county in Arkansas.
Either the links have vanished or my bookmarking was in error - I'll
accept the possibility of error, since I certainly am not perfect, but
how is it that the exact same search on multiple search engines will
turn up different results on different days?
There's another problem I've found with the internet - definitions can
change, or they may not be complete. Someone could base their own
findings on the inexact ones and the error propagate itself, before
the faulty ones are corrected . (Hmmm. There might be a story seed
in that: in an era of change, dynamic definitions can cause havoc
<steps aside to scribble>.)
__
JamesE
Kat R
Derivations of derivations are like photocopying a photocopy--pale
imitations that lead the tyro to think they've discovered something new
only to have a "old hand" laugh at them and say "this is just like
Such-and-such!" and the tyro suddenly discovers that they've re-invented
the wheel. (Reminds me of talking to a friend about "noir" and his
"brilliant" idea which turned out to be the same story as D.O.A.--he'd
never heard of the either version of the film.)
--
Kat Richardson
Greywalker, coming from Roc, October 3, 2006
http://www.katrichardson.com/
David Friedman
Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:
> Woof <jamesd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> [references to use for writing]
>
> > And if you're escaping the real world and writing fantasy, good
> > reference material includes the assorted books from Wizards of
> > the Coast for the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons fantasy role
> > playing game. At the very least, the Players Handbook and the
> > Monster/Monstrous Manual (name changes on this frequently).
>
> This rubs me the wrong way. I want to ask: What for? Writing fantasy
> doesn't mean it automatically includes anything even only remotely
> smelling of AD&D.
If anything, I think lifting stuff from D&D is likely to get you closer
to EFP and farther from something interesting.
One of the things that impressed me about Moon's _Sheepfarmer's
Daughter_ was that it was in something close to a D&D world (although
she disagrees) and yet worked. Doing that is hard.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
David Friedman
"Woof" <jamesd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I noticed someone else mentioned a Book of Quotes. This might not be as
> necessary for fiction, but it is VERY helpful for non-fiction writing. A
> good quote supporting your story is a great filler.
As a non-fiction writer, my reaction to this was negative, and I'm
trying to figure out why. I think it comes down to the idea that using
quotes that you got from a book of quotes is cheating. The quotes ought
to signal something about the author's mental world as well as a
memorable way of saying something, so they should be part of the
author's mental furniture, complete with their context.
I'm not sure how well I can defend that, but it's definitely how I feel.
I'm present in my non-fiction, and quotes and other things are telling
the reader something about the author who is conversing with him. Of
course, that might be less true in other sorts of non-fiction.
Woof
> Which means that, at very best, they're second-rate. Why read them
> when you can read 1) the material they've mined for ideas; 2) the
> material _that_ was based on, which allows you to bypass at least two
> layers of dumbing-down?
Woof: Consolidation of subjects and material. Not every book has
everything. Again, this was suggested as a general reference to get you
going. You want a book to tell you about armor? Get a book on armor.
Weapons. Castles. Clothing. Sociology. Food. Merchandise. Monetary
systems. Eventually these all add up and you've got a dozen or so books for
"quick" ref. My suggestion: A broadbased book for quick reference and ideas
at hand, a collection of specific books available on the bookshelf or in a
stack in the corner for thorough and detailed reference.
> Here are some things which I suspect the AD&D material would not have:
> 1) Grendel and his mother were descendants of Cain. 2) The Cornish
> knockers (known in the US as tommyknockers) were of Jewish ancestry.
> 3) Much of Europe was, at various times, outside the feudal system. 4)
> The term "feudal system" wasn't coined till well after what it
> described was pretty well gone.
>
Woof: Nope. As for things the AD&D books don't have?
If your work is about a singular specific anything, then collect your refs
specific to that topic. (Actually, this statement answers all four of your
points which are essentially pieces of selected historical or folklore
trivia, interesting as they may be).
1) If your work is focused on Grendel, I'd suggest you start with Beowulf
and branch out from there.
2) Read Stephen King's book. Research Cornish/Welsh folklore if it applies.
If it doesn't apply, then knowing this is completely irrelevant. Sort of
like knowing who won the 1980 World Series won't help you if it has nothing
to do with your subject.
3) If you're looking for specific points about periods of European history
then you should research that specific topic. You might find a table of
such in one of the New York Times Public Library Desk References. I no
longer have access to my copy since it's over 1000 miles away, so I can't
cite.
By the way, AD&D is not limited to Europe, feudalism, or even history. Thus
the word: fantasy. While some scientists, according to a PBS documentary,
actually believe large reptiles known as dragons may have once roamed the
land, hunted down to extinction by valiant knights (there being no solid
proof of any of this), it is beyond logical supposition that these alleged
dragons actually soared through the skies breathing fire, collecting damsels
in distress, and hoarding treasure. It is even further fantasy to imagine
great warriors in armor riding these fire breathing dragons as mounts,
jousting in the skies. The further you take it away from reality, the more
it becomes fantasy. After decades of searching, I've yet to find Middle
Earth on a "real" map, though some sections of Baton Rouge, Louisiana come
frightfully close.
4) And that's how it goes for almost all labels. Researchers and authors,
regardless of the field, love to come up with their own labels. Self help
psychology books tend to be the worst at this.
> --
> Dan Goodman
> All political parties die at last of swallowing their own lies.
> John Arbuthnot (1667-1735), Scottish writer, physician.
> Journal http://dsgood.livejournal.com
> Links http://del.icio.us/dsgood
Woof: And again, when writing a project intended for publication, do your
homework beyond the quick refs. Learn about the subject. Have your quick
refs handy, have your details readily available. It's not a bad idea to
take notes from your more detailed tomes.
Woof
> > Don't I see you on rgfd?
"Sea Wasp" <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote in message
news:44CD4595...@obvioussgeinc.com...
>
> I *AM* r.g.f.dnd. Well, not quite, but I'm definitely one of the
> Great Old Ones there.
>
> > I'm sorry you had to playtest 3rd Edition ;-}
>
> Why? It's by FAR the best version of D&D ever made, incorporating
> many of the fixes I've waited for them to make since they released the
> first version in '74.
>
--
> Sea Wasp
> /^\
> ;;;
> Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
>
Just a joke. I'll leave the discussions of pros and cons of each game
edition to the appropriate newsgroup probably later this evening. As to
what is best, that is, of course, subjective. Until I have more money and
time to devote to reading WotC's 3rd Edition (and 3.5), I am not qualified
to argue that point.
I suspect when I'm able to purchase all of these materials to the tune of
over a hundred bucks, they will release a 4th Edition with inconsistencies
immediately requiring a 4.5. As I've said elsewhere, their publishing
trends are starting to resemble Microsoft's.
James A. Donald
> > > (4) The term 'feudal' has been used in so many
> > > different ways that a good many medieval
> > > historians consider it nearly meaningless.
Dan Goodman
> > So, what do they do instead to describe 1) the
> > sociopolitical system which predominated in some
> > places in some parts of the Middle Ages;
"Brian M. Scott"
> Which one(s)?
The ones in which defense and control was decentralized,
and the nobility had a largely hereditary right to use
legitimate force, the gentry had a substantial right to
use legitimate force and with the result that the
nobility attempted to claim, with varying degrees of
success, that the king was merely first among equals.
In such a society, justice must be carried out largely
by individuals (heroes) acting on their own initiative,
which (like the wild west) makes for rattling good
yarns.
And that is why feudal societies are so popular in
rec.arts.sf.composition.
The "feudalism" imagined by Marxists never existed, and
if it had ever existed, would have made for really
boring stories.
Brian M. Scott
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote in
<news:ldqqc2hoib25dmq0l...@4ax.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> "Brian M. Scott"
>> (4) The term 'feudal' has been used in so many
>> different ways that a good many medieval historians
>> consider it nearly meaningless.
> We had this debate before. [...]
There's no debate. What I wrote is a straightforward matter
of fact.
Woof
"David Friedman" <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote in message
news:ddfr-0C5018.2...@news.isp.giganews.com...
I guess it all comes down to what quotes you actually use and how well they
apply to your topic. An irrelevant quote will kill an article just as quick
as an irrelevant fact. You have to be selective. Of course, if you have a
living source for your story, quote them instead of pulling one out of the
rabbit's hat Book of Quotes. It may not be as memorable a quote, but it's
more applicable. But if you're otherwise devoid of quotable material and
you need to fill a couple more lines with something that sounds like
substance even if it really isn't, then the quote books come in handy.
They're a handy supply of BS. Political speechwriters apparently love them.
Dan Goodman
So -- how many words can historians use without running into such
problems? "History" might not be among them. I've just googled on
"the end of history," and run into two rather different definitions of
what it means -- which depend on two different ideas about what
"history" means.
Dan Goodman
>
> "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
> > Which means that, at very best, they're second-rate. Why read them
> > when you can read 1) the material they've mined for ideas; 2) the
> > material that was based on, which allows you to bypass at least two
> > layers of dumbing-down?
>
> Woof: Consolidation of subjects and material. Not every book has
> everything. Again, this was suggested as a general reference to get
> you going.
And again, I say it's a very, very, very poor choice for that.
You want a book to tell you about armor? Get a book on
> armor. Weapons. Castles. Clothing. Sociology. Food.
> Merchandise. Monetary systems. Eventually these all add up and
> you've got a dozen or so books for "quick" ref. My suggestion: A
> broadbased book for quick reference and ideas at hand, a collection
> of specific books available on the bookshelf or in a stack in the
> corner for thorough and detailed reference.
Sure -- but get a _good_ general book, one which you can usually rely
on.
> > Here are some things which I suspect the AD&D material would not
> > have: 1) Grendel and his mother were descendants of Cain. 2) The
> > Cornish knockers (known in the US as tommyknockers) were of Jewish
> > ancestry. 3) Much of Europe was, at various times, outside the
> > feudal system. 4) The term "feudal system" wasn't coined till well
> > after what it described was pretty well gone.
> >
> Woof: Nope. As for things the AD&D books don't have?
> If your work is about a singular specific anything, then collect your
> refs specific to that topic. (Actually, this statement answers all
> four of your points which are essentially pieces of selected
> historical or folklore trivia, interesting as they may be).
> 1) If your work is focused on Grendel, I'd suggest you start with
> Beowulf and branch out from there.
> 2) Read Stephen King's book.
I take it you haven't read _The Tommyknockers_? The creatures which
get called "tommyknockers" are nothing at all like tommyknockers.
They're Conquering Outer Space Aliens From Outer Space Bent on
Conquest. Traditional tommyknockers are supernatural folk who live
in/around mines; and they're of Earthly origin.
> Research Cornish/Welsh folklore if it
> applies.
Only Cornish would apply.
> If it doesn't apply, then knowing this is completely
> irrelevant.
And if it does, but you don't realize it does?
Sort of like knowing who won the 1980 World Series won't
> help you if it has nothing to do with your subject.
> 3) If you're looking for specific points about periods of European
> history then you should research that specific topic. You might find
> a table of such in one of the New York Times Public Library Desk
> References. I no longer have access to my copy since it's over 1000
> miles away, so I can't cite.
>
> Woof: And again, when writing a project intended for publication, do
> your homework beyond the quick refs. Learn about the subject. Have
> your quick refs handy, have your details readily available. It's not
> a bad idea to take notes from your more detailed tomes.
And again -- that's a damnably poor choice of quick refs.
Zeborah
> Either the links have vanished or my bookmarking was in error - I'll
> accept the possibility of error, since I certainly am not perfect, but
> how is it that the exact same search on multiple search engines will
> turn up different results on different days?
The exact same search on multiple search engines will turn up different
results on the same day, due to different algorithms and databases.
Many information science articles have been written on the subject.
As for the same engine on different days, the engine's indexes have been
updated in the meantime to adjust for new/changed information. Or even
a new algorithm.
> There's another problem I've found with the internet - definitions can
> change, or they may not be complete. Someone could base their own
> findings on the inexact ones and the error propagate itself, before
> the faulty ones are corrected . (Hmmm. There might be a story seed
> in that: in an era of change, dynamic definitions can cause havoc
> <steps aside to scribble>.)
If anyone else wants a random story seed, I've long had the idea of time
machines being as ubiquitous as the internet, leading to WikiHistory. I
haven't yet come up with a story to set in that which compels me enough
to tell it, though there clearly are a bazillion possible such stories
to tell; my mind simply doesn't work well coming from that direction.
Brian M. Scott
<dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote in
<news:44cd89b2$0$731$8046...@newsreader.iphouse.net> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:39:13 -0500, Dan Goodman
>> <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote in
>> <news:44cd5f43$0$717$8046...@newsreader.iphouse.net> in
>> rec.arts.sf.composition:
>>> Brian M. Scott wrote:
[...]
>>>> (4) The term 'feudal' has been used in so many different
>>>> ways that a good many medieval historians consider it nearly
>>>> meaningless.
>>> So, what do they do instead to describe 1) the
>>> sociopolitical system which predominated in some places
>>> in some parts of the Middle Ages;
>> Which one(s)?
>>> 2) the idealizations of it at the time;
>> Which time?
>>> 3) the idealizations which came about after it was
>>> obsolete?
>> The general answer to all of these, I think, is that the
>> term is useful only if suitably qualified.
> So -- how many words can historians use without running
> into such problems?
It's a matter of degree. In this case the problems are
acute. There's an extensive summaru in Constance Brittain
Bouchard's _Strong of Body, Brave & Noble: Chivalry &
Society in Medieval France_, of which a relevant part is
quoted in
<http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.medieval/msg/c0431f9877c0a9f6>
and
<http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.medieval/msg/fa7059674ce89b8e>.
Susan Reynolds deals extensively with the problems at the
beginning of her _Fiefs and Vassals_. Another voice that
happens to be handy is that of the medieval military
historian Stephen Morillo:
<http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jwh/14.4/morillo.html>
[...]
Brian
Bill Swears
>
> lifts
Thanks. I've been fixing it by hand, But I've finally made the change in
my sig file. I fear most folks from this side think I'm saying
"elevates" and wonder what it means that Ourdebate.com elevates and dilutes.
Bill Swears
> Guess that's true. Personally, I'd lose interest at the first sign of
> any AD&D-like setting for a fantasy story.
>
I think it's like any other known milieu. If you chose to write in it,
there are trade-offs. If you're good at it, people will stick around.
There seems to be a market.
Bill Swears
>
> One of the things that impressed me about Moon's _Sheepfarmer's
> Daughter_ was that it was in something close to a D&D world (although
> she disagrees) and yet worked. Doing that is hard.
>
I read a critique of _The Deed of Paksenarion_ that explicitly said it
was the first novel that writer had ever seen set in middle earth that
worked. I don't see it myself.
Bill Swears
> David Friedman wrote:
>>
>> One of the things that impressed me about Moon's _Sheepfarmer's
>> Daughter_ was that it was in something close to a D&D world
>> (although she disagrees) and yet worked. Doing that is hard.
>>
>
> I read a critique of _The Deed of Paksenarion_ that explicitly said
> set in middle earth that worked. [other than the one that established
> middle earth, I suppose.] I don't see it myself. [the intimate
> relationship with middle earth, that is. I felt the novel worked in
> its own right, not withstanding whatever relationship it may or may
> not have had with LOTR].
Chris Dollin
>
> While I recognize the point you're making, I don't fully agree on the D&D
> refs for fantasy fiction. Yes, if you're writing fantasy, you need to
> have familiarity with the original material such as Tolkien, Arthurian
> legends, and so forth.
Urm, I assume you realise that not all fantasy sits on top of what
you're calling "the original material"?
--
Far-Fetched Hedgehog
Notmuchhere: http://www.electric-hedgehog.net/
Otherface: Jena RDF/Owl toolkit http://jena.sourceforge.net/
James Eades
Clearly, when one is going to build, correct or polish a story, it is
alway nice to have a stable universe in which to work.
(It is disconcerting to find things that *change*. By the way, I grew
up in a universe where memento was spelled momento, for some reason.
I pride myself on my spelling ability, but now find I've always been
been wrong about this particular word. Don't remember when I fell
through into this universe. :-)
__
JamesE
Constantinople
1) "A good many" is more personal impression than fact.
2) Merely remove one layer and one gets to the debate. To wit, the
claim, "it is nearly meaningless" is not fact but opinion, which you
yourself suggest that not all historians share.
Joann Zimmerman
> Marilee J. Layman wrote:
> > On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 11:36:08 -0800, Bill Swears <wsw...@gci.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Ourdebate.com lift free debate between writers and dilutes it with ads.
> >
> > lifts
> Thanks. I've been fixing it by hand, But I've finally made the change in
> my sig file. I fear most folks from this side think I'm saying
> "elevates" and wonder what it means that Ourdebate.com elevates and dilutes.
Perhaps the word you really want is "appropriates"?
--
"I never understood people who don't have bookshelves."
--George Plimpton
Joann Zimmerman jz...@bellereti.com
James A. Donald
> It's a matter of degree. In this case the problems
> are acute. There's an extensive summaru in Constance
> Brittain Bouchard's _Strong of Body, Brave & Noble:
> Chivalry & Society in Medieval France_, of which a
> relevant part is quoted in
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.medieval/msg/c0431f9877c0a9f6>
>
> and
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.medieval/msg/fa7059674ce89b8e>.
As I pointed out last time you cited her rant:
She complains of "many" incompatible usages, but the
usages she lists are not in fact many: The usages she
lists are the regular meaning, which she sneers at, and
the various incoherent Marxist usages, which are
mutually incompatible because they are part of a theory
that makes no sense.
The regular meaning being that she snears at being:
: : "Feudalism" has sometimes taken on political
: : signficance, describing a system in which power
: : is decentralized, held by many different people
: : acting essentially independently, so that the
: : wealthy became the de facto political leaders.
: : More weakly, but even more pervasively,
: : "feudal" is sometimes used as a synonym for
: : "noble," so that every castle becomes a
: : "feudal" castle, the Crusades become an
: : exercise in "feudal" warfare, and monasteries
: : that buried their noble patrons become "feudal"
: : churches.
Nothing wrong, nor inconsistent, in using "feudal" to
refer to nobles whose power is decentralized, and
substantially independent of higher authority, as it was
in the Crusades, nor wrong to refer to anything
associated with them as feudal. Castles that the King
found politically or militarily difficult to subdue were
indeed feudal castles, and the monasteries back in the
days when they could give the finger to both king and
pope were indeed feudal.
And of course this political order was characteristic of
a particular place and time, so it is reasonable to
refer to that place and time as feudal.
And note that
: : a system in which power is decentralized,
: : held by many different people acting
: : essentially independently
Is a system that allows for good stories. In feudalism,
as in the wild west, it is the individual hero that
supplies justice - though of course since the class of
people authorized to dispense heroic justice was
strictly limited, unlike the wild west, things tended to
be a bit rough if you were not of that class.
Chuk Goodin
>Perhaps he also suggests that the reference for writing science fiction
>is a GURPS manual (from what I know there's certainly a wide variety).
I've seen plenty of published SF that could have used a few minutes look
through the latest version of GURPS Space. Wouldn't rely on it as a sole
source, but with it and some of the stuff from the bibliography, you'd be
fine as long as you weren't looking for actual rock-hard numbers.
--
chuk
Marilee J. Layman
<jz...@bellereti.com> wrote:
>In article <12cr5ag...@corp.supernews.com>, wsw...@gci.net says...
>> Marilee J. Layman wrote:
>> > On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 11:36:08 -0800, Bill Swears <wsw...@gci.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Ourdebate.com lift free debate between writers and dilutes it with ads.
>> >
>> > lifts
>> Thanks. I've been fixing it by hand, But I've finally made the change in
>> my sig file. I fear most folks from this side think I'm saying
>> "elevates" and wonder what it means that Ourdebate.com elevates and dilutes.
>
>Perhaps the word you really want is "appropriates"?
Or even steals?
--
Marilee J. Layman
http://mjlayman.livejournal.com/
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>Woof wrote:
>
>> If you're writing about Minneapolis and you've never been there, you
>> might start with a good map.
>
>I would recommend: 1) _The Rough Guide to the USA_; 2) Latest edition
>of _The Almanac of American Politics_ (read this one at a library,
>because the paperback edition now costs over fifty dollars); 3) webcams
>showing Minneapolis scenes; 4) one of the books intended for newcomers
>to the area (caution: they're coy about mentioning poor neighborhoods).
Better, come to Minicon and spend extra time exploring the city.
Joann Zimmerman
mar...@mjlayman.com says...
I was being polite and trying not to be actionable.
Nicola Browne
news:t2vsc25efes6jlsg8...@4ax.com
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:27:13 -0500, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Woof wrote:
> >
> >> If you're writing about Minneapolis and you've never been there, you
> >> might start with a good map.
Alternatively don't set a story in a real place you've never been.
Nicky
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
James A. Donald
> > > > (4) The term 'feudal' has been used in so many
> > > > different ways that a good many medieval
> > > > historians consider it nearly meaningless.
James A. Donald:
> > > We had this debate before. [...]
"Brian M. Scott"
> > There's no debate. What I wrote is a
> > straightforward matter of fact.
Constantinople:
> 1) "A good many" is more personal impression than
> fact.
>
> 2) Merely remove one layer and one gets to the debate.
> To wit, the claim, "it is nearly meaningless" is not
> fact but opinion, which you yourself suggest that not
> all historians share.
The core of the problem is that Marxists have their own
definitions of "feudal", and disagree with the
conventional definition with intemperate and excessive
fervor, and also disagree with each other's definitions
with similar fervor.
That disagreement however really should not be of
interest for writers group, for the Marxist concepts of
feudalism make for really boring stories.
Brian Scott's middle ages strikingly resemble the middle
ages as imagined by Marxists: no bourgeoisie, no
industrial disputes, no knight errants applying their
own private justice to inferiors, equals, and sometimes
superiors, no associations of equals whether noble or
commoner, just peasants ground under the iron heel of
the nobility and the nobility grinding away under the
iron heel of the king. Supposedly the middle ages worked
as modern Marxist states actually did work - from the
top down, and modern Marxist states supposedly work
quite differently to the way they actually did work.
How can you have fun story without wandering heroes and
associations of equals? The Soviet Union was in reality
gray and boring, and the middle ages as imagined by
Marxists was gray and boring.