Story Recommendations

[Homer Vargas]

EzzyB wrote:   "Was this thread [Is It Just Me?] ever about stories?  It seems to me that it's always about grammar, syntax, voice and all the particulars about what makes something 'good writing.' It's like Food Network.  It's all about preparing and serving and has absolutely nothing to do with whether it actually tastes good or not. I mean do you really want 'lemon almond crusted fried escargot' or fried chicken?"   *************************** OK, Let's talk about stories.  Of course the stories we'd MOST like to talk about are our own ["But enough about ME, what do YOU think of my stories?"], but putting that aside, let's talk abou good stories we have read recently.   I put on the table, Finder's Fee, by colt45. http://storiesonline.net/story/56964     I thought it was just about perfect.  Not too long (35,000 words), an engaging 1st person voice, a classic SciFi plot device (I actually thoug ), a fair amount of sex that did not seen contrived leading up to three beautiful knocked up women and kids out the kazoo.     My stories can be read on: http://www.asstr.org/files/Authors/Vargas http://www.asstr.org/~Vargas/stories.html http://www.mcstories.com http://www.eroticstories.com http://storiesonline.net http://www.literotica.com http://www.the-impregnorium.com

[Bad Fred]

I assumed he meant what makes stories good.

[Switch Blayde]

> I assumed he meant what makes stories good.

 
In that case, I assume he meant what makes a good tale rather than a good story.
 
Switch

[Bad Fred]

There's a difference?

[Switch Blayde]

> There's a difference?

 
Sure. The story is both the tale and how it's structured. Since he specifically pointed out that the grammatical and other aspects of making a story good (from the readability side) is what we had discussed, but not what makes a good story, I assume he is talking about the tale aspect of it (what story you're telling).
 
But then again, you know what they say about those who assume (makes an ASS out of U and ME).
 
Switch

[Bad Fred]

Right.  I still insist, if he wants to talk about that thing, he should talk about that thing -- whatever it may be.

I've never hesitated to talk about what I was thinking!  :)

--
BadFred
Read my stories: http://www.asstr.org/~badfred/

[The Black Knight]

Bad Fred allegedly wrote:
> I've never hesitated to talk about what I was thinking!  :)

But that's just because mostly, y'all think about super-powered
teenage lesbians. Which is, after all, something good to think about,
talk about, videotape...

[Bad Fred]

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 2:57 PM, The Black Knight <cm0...@hotmail.com> wrote:

But that's just because mostly, y'all think about super-powered
teenage lesbians. Which is, after all, something good to think about,
talk about, videotape...

True.

[EzzyB]

It's about crafting a story.

My point is that we get so caught up in the mechanics of writing that
we forget to write good stories.

I had one editor send me three links describing why my text was
flawed. All three were to STYLE SHEETS (National Geographic, Chicago
News, and UPI). The English language is so fucked up each
organization has to have rules as to how it wants to write it! So why
do we spend so much time on 'how to write' instead of 'how to craft'?

We don't talk about loops and feeds and plot points and antagonist and
protagonists. We talk endlessly on the use of commas, or apostrophes
and words that in in 'ly'. The former make good stories, the latter
make good writing (depending on whose style sheet you believe).

EzzyB

On Sep 20, 11:30 am, Bad Fred <badfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Right.  I still insist, if he wants to talk about that thing, he should talk
> about that thing -- whatever it may be.
>
> I've never hesitated to talk about what I was thinking!  :)
>
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Switch Blayde

> <switch_bla...@hotmail.com>wrote:

>
> >  > There's a difference?
>
> > Sure. The story is both the tale and how it's structured. Since he
> > specifically pointed out that the grammatical and other aspects of making a
> > story good (from the readability side) is what we had discussed, but not
> > what makes a good story, I assume he is talking about the tale aspect of it
> > (what story you're telling).
>

> > But then again, you know what they say about those who assume (makes an *
> > ASS* out of *U* and *ME*).

[Homer Vargas]

I guess it's possible for a writer to get so into technique as to forget to tell a story, but I can of an example.
 

My stories can be read on:
http://www.asstr.org/files/Authors/Vargas
http://www.asstr.org/~Vargas/stories.html
http://www.mcstories.com
http://www.eroticstories.com
http://storiesonline.net
http://www.literotica.com
http://www.the-impregnorium.com

---

From: EzzyB <ez...@storiesonline.org>
To: storiesonline <storie...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 1:29:42 PM
Subject: Re: Story Recommendations

[Bad Fred]

So, say something about those things.

On Sep 21, 2010 2:29 AM, "EzzyB" <ez...@storiesonline.org> wrote:

It's about crafting a story.

My point is that we get so caught up in the mechanics of writing that
we forget to write good stories.

I had one editor send me three links describing why my text was
flawed.  All three were to STYLE SHEETS (National Geographic, Chicago
News, and UPI).  The English language is so fucked up each
organization has to have rules as to how it wants to write it!  So why
do we spend so much time on 'how to write' instead of 'how to craft'?

We don't talk about loops and feeds and plot points and antagonist and
protagonists.  We talk endlessly on the use of commas, or apostrophes
and words that in in 'ly'.  The former make good stories, the latter
make good writing (depending on whose style sheet you believe).

EzzyB

On Sep 20, 11:30 am, Bad Fred <badfre...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Right.  I still insist, if he wants to...

> <switch_bla...@hotmail.com>wrote:

>
> >  > There's a difference?
>
> > Sure. The story is both the tale and how it's structured. Since...

[Homer Vargas]

Or point out a stroy that shows "getting so caught up in the mechanics of writing that we forget to write good stories."
 

My stories can be read on:
http://www.asstr.org/files/Authors/Vargas
http://www.asstr.org/~Vargas/stories.html
http://www.mcstories.com
http://www.eroticstories.com
http://storiesonline.net
http://www.literotica.com
http://www.the-impregnorium.com

---

From: Bad Fred <badf...@gmail.com>
To: storie...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 7:51:50 PM
Subject: Re: Story Recommendations

[bondi beach]

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:29 PM, EzzyB <ez...@storiesonline.org> wrote:

It's about crafting a story.

News, and UPI).  The English language is so fucked up each
organization has to have rules as to how it wants to write it!  So why

Organizations have style guides, their own or adopted from elsewhere---AP, Chicago Manual of Style, etc.---to give a consistent "look and feel," if that term can be applied to text, to their written materials.

Also, since there are, at last count, approximately 5,671 ways to do commas, etc., it's more important to be consistent rather than "right."

bb

[Switch Blayde]

If I were sitting around a campfire and someone was telling a great ghost story, I'd love it. Now if that person was telling it in Greek (which I do not speak), I wouldn't have any idea what he was saying. If he switched to broken English, maybe I'd get some of it, but I'd lose the full impact of the story and most likely not enjoy it. True, you don't have a good story if the tale sucks. But the greatest tale could still turn out to be a crappy story if it's not presented well. So both are important (and, yes, the tale is the most important).
 
I would love to talk about the mechanics of making a good tale or "how to craft a good tale." We've glossed over some in the past with comments about "character development," "plot climaxes," etc., but haven't delved into any.
 
So my challenge to you (actually the group) is to choose one and create a thread about it so we can discuss it. When that thread migrates to someone getting pregnant, then we move on to the next topic.
 
Switch
 
> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 23:29:42 -0700
> Subject: Re: Story Recommendations
> From: ez...@storiesonline.org
> To: storie...@googlegroups.com

[NoGoodNick]

Think y'all are missing the original point. He was saying: Let's get
away, for the moment, from talking craft and instead talk story.

I'm an old Series guy, I read them pretty much exclusively. I won't
even start until I see a minimum of 10 chapters. Plus, I'm a stickler
for "harem" type stories. That said, probably my favorite right now is
"Dream Master" by Shadow of Moonlite. It's the 3rd or 4th book of what
he describes as a "writing experiment" that turned into an extended
series. Betting you all know what that's about. ;)

Anyway, it's about a young Hi-School kid who finds he can "visit", and
control, other's dreams. Of course, sex immediatley occurs, some of
it, clearly being incestual, just to keep up appearances. However, as
the story progressed, and the writer matured in his story telling (and
the attendant wish to move away from sex stories to move into
publishable works), the story's taken on a more intellectual feel, as
the various characters spend quite a bit of time trying to figure out
what the various permutations of the story might mean.

Basically the story is about his finding a variety of mass murders,
who need capturing before they can hurt those he wishes to protect.
Very "Mystery" oriented. He's also fighting very hard to keep away
from the "Superhero" trap that his emerging superhero story finds
itself in. That being the "Let's invent a new super power to get the
character out of the trap I just put him into". It's a tough trap to
avoid, thus the agonizing thoughts wrestled with as he tries to
justify the various elements of the book.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents for today. Hope that helps move the
discussion along.

[TheDarkKnight]

In my younger days I read a lot of SF. I'm talking classic 50's-60's
stuff (I'm o-l-l-l-d-d-d). A lot of those stories were good "tales",
but not good "stories". By that I mean the authors had a lot of good
ideas, extrapolations of the latest discoveries and such, but they
were not very good at creating realistic characters and dialogue.
Maybe that was because most of those writers were nerds before nerds
were cool, and had all the personal relationship problems that go
along with that.

[Zine]

bb,

You're correct; there is no "right." There are just various ways to
go about some things. Style guides try to impose order. But nothing
is foolproof. Fools are just too smart. Blog post by Bill Walsh:
http://www.theslot.com/style.html

Zine

[The Black Knight]

Homer Vargas allegedly wrote:
> Or point out a stroy that shows "getting so caught up in the mechanics of writing that we forget to write good stories."

Grab copy of NYT. Find any book review where the reviewer is fawning
over the novel. That novel will most likely be a good example of what
y'all are talking about.

[Zine]

Ezzy,

We have talked about all those things that come under the umbrella of
literary theory. We have even tried to "objectify" those elements or
characteristics -- outside of those conventionally required -- that
make great literature great. In other words, that certain something
that makes those works stand out from the merely very good. And, of
course, that led to a like discussion regarding art in general.

Zine

[Bad Fred]

Yeah.  They are cool topics and I'd love to talk about them more.  Now, one can expect a certain sort of skepticism from me.  And I bet SB will find some article that I violently disagree with until he doesn't talk to me for a few days!

But still, we can talk about this stuff.  Bring it on!

Ezzy annoys me.  He brings up a cool topic, but then has nothing to say.

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Zine <mlle.eu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ezzy,

We have talked about all those things that come under the umbrella of
literary theory.  We have even tried to "objectify" those elements or
characteristics -- outside of those conventionally required -- that
make great literature great. In other words, that certain something
that makes those works stand out from the merely very good.  And, of
course, that led to a like discussion regarding art in general.

Zine

[EzzyB]

Well I'm sure there are more academic names for these things.

To me a 'feed' or a 'hook' is something you insert into a story
knowing you are coming back to it. It can be simple, or, if you do it
right, profound. My last stories are about a musical group. In
chapter 5 the girl says (paraphrased) 'I'd like to do this song but
we'd need a tuba'. Twelve chapters later I provide the tuba. It
tightens the story and makes it seem like a single unit instead of
sequential chapters. It also keeps you from that distracting moment
when just the perfect thing needed seems to appear out of nowhere
"Bob, pulled out the .357 magnum he purchased at the store yesterday,
and shot him between the eyes". And we all go what? So in chapter
one of my last story they were asking about a little tender for the
yacht. When it shows up in chapter 15, no one is surprised and it
doesn't sound like it came out of the blue just because the author
needed it then.

A loop is easier, it's unplanned. It's a recurring theme you go back
to. One of my main character's is literally a psycho (in a good
way). Upon his baby sister's death he just simply went out there
somewhere. Now he just has a compulsion to intervene and interfere
wherever any young girl anywhere is threatened. He literally can't
help himself. So I loop back through that anytime the opportunity
presents itself.

I think antagonists don't really have to be all that traditional. I
mean it's OK if you don't have a boogeyman. I have a story where
there are two antagonists, one is a medical condition, the other is
the ghost of that dead sister. They both drive the actions of the
characters which really is the point after all.

Lastly how flawed do we really want our protagonist to be. I get
feedback saying my characters are 'too perfect'. I understand that,
I'm reading a story now about some teens nearing the end of high
school. Every one has a perfect GPA and all, of course, are going to
get scholarships. That's a bit much. I portray many of the same aged
characters as underage drinkers, some smoke, But really, beyond that,
just how flawed do we want our heroes to be?

Hey you asked for it BF :)

EzzyB

[Vanquished]

On 22/09/2010 9:20, EzzyB wrote:
> Lastly how flawed do we really want our protagonist to be. I get
> feedback saying my characters are 'too perfect'. I understand that,
> I'm reading a story now about some teens nearing the end of high
> school. Every one has a perfect GPA and all, of course, are going to
> get scholarships. That's a bit much. I portray many of the same aged
> characters as underage drinkers, some smoke, But really, beyond that,
> just how flawed do we want our heroes to be?

I'll comment a little on this if you don't mind. I think there's not a
huge problem in having characters who are mostly doing fine, and who are
not tragically flawed somehow. After all, I could go on and on with
titles of published and well regarded books where the protagonist or
his/her gang are like that. What it IMO requires is that they need to
confront more interesting problems.

An Alexander the Great character is interesting not because he's flawed
and hubristic (IMO) but because he has a very serious thing to do:
conquer the world. Now, if you placed someone like Alexander (or Ender,
from Ender's game) in the typical teen drama about getting rid of the
school bully, that'd hardly do justice to their characters, it'd be
boring, etc.

--Vanquished.

[Homer Vargas]

This is probably not worth a big argument, but in the spirit of my question, how do I know that excessive attention to mechanics is the reason the fawned upon book is bad?  Maybe the writer is just no good or had an off year and inattention to the mechanics would have only made things worse?

 

 

My stories can be read on:
http://www.asstr.org/files/Authors/Vargas
http://www.asstr.org/~Vargas/stories.html
http://www.mcstories.com
http://www.eroticstories.com
http://storiesonline.net
http://www.literotica.com
http://www.the-impregnorium.com

---

From: The Black Knight <cm0...@hotmail.com>
To: storiesonline <storie...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wed, September 22, 2010 4:11:02 AM
Subject: Re: Story Recommendations

[Homer Vargas]

Interesting. Nogoodnick and I will have very little overlap in stories read.  Ten chapters is about the mazimum I'll tolerate.
 

My stories can be read on:
http://www.asstr.org/files/Authors/Vargas
http://www.asstr.org/~Vargas/stories.html
http://www.mcstories.com
http://www.eroticstories.com
http://storiesonline.net
http://www.literotica.com
http://www.the-impregnorium.com

---

From: NoGoodNick <NoGoo...@charter.net>
To: storiesonline <storie...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wed, September 22, 2010 12:24:42 AM
Subject: Re: Story Recommendations

[Bad Fred]

I've heard the term "hook" as anything that will grab the reader's interests.  It also reminds me of Chekhov's quip that if you show a gun hanging from the wall in act one, it'd better get used by act 3.

I dunno is there is a lit-crit name of a "loop", but I think authors know to use reoccurring themes.

How perfect must a character be?  There are online Mary Sue tests you can put your folks through.  Mine always fail them, of course, but somehow I think I make it work.  Nobody has ever complained that my gals are Mary Sues -- which means whatever it means.


The Jonhnstone advice (which is more for drama, but I think it works):

1. Break routines,

2. Don't cancel,

3. Keep the action onstage,

4. Reincorporate.

In a later book he adds, "Don't be clever.  Do the obvious thing."


To reincorporate is to bring your tuba back.  He says, if stuck for an idea, don't look forward, look back into your story.

Don't cancel means if you introduce a dilemma, don't let it just *go away* on its own.

Break routines is the most important, I think.  It says to find routines, in real life, in literature, in your characters life so far, and break them.  Something *new* happens.  That grabs interest like nothing else.

Don't be clever, do the obvious thing is subtle.  It makes sense when applied to improv theater, where unskilled performers will try to "be clever" and bring in weird, loopy ideas which the audience cannot connect to the action so far.

An example he gives is where an actor is waiting for his mother-in-law to visit.  As part of the improv exercise, he takes out a gun.  Then, he waits for mother-in-law.  When she arrives, he "gets clever" and mimes putting flowers into the gun and giving it to her.

The audience groans.

A good scene, Johnstone says, one that would have the audience at the edge of their seats and ultimately please them, would have him load the gun -- slowly -- then hide and wait for her arrival.  When she arrives, he shoots her.  After she falls, just at that moment, he must think of a good line.

Well, fiction is different from improv, but I see his point.  To "be obvious" is to make sure your story delivers what you promised the reader.  I mean -- it should be clever in a basic sense.  But as he proceeds, your reader forms a sphere of expectation.  If you step *widely* out of that, he will be dissatisfied.

[Switch Blayde]

> From: ez...@storiesonline.org

>
> A loop is easier, it's unplanned. It's a recurring theme you go back to.
 

I don't read/write Sci-Fi, but I think a loop in fiction is a Sci-Fi term. It has something to do with time and always going back to the same point to do it over again.
 
Switch

[Tim Merrigan]

That would be a temporal fugue, a la "Groundhog Day", I think, in fact he said it, what Ezzy means is more of a recurring theme.  Every time his character sees a young girl being harassed he mentally flashes back to his sisters murder, and, due to a psychological compulsive disorder, he HAS to intervene.

In real life, more than half the time the girl wouldn't want the intervention, and eventually he'd get into a situation he couldn't handle and get himself, and maybe the girl, either seriously injured or killed.

-- 

I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation, from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
      Feel free to use the above variant pledge in your own postings.

Tim Merrigan 

[The Black Knight]

Homer Vargas allegedly wrote:
> This is probably not worth a big argument, but in the spirit of my question, how
> do I know that excessive attention to mechanics is the reason the fawned upon
> book is bad?

Well, it's not that there's excessive attention to mechanics... it's
that reviewers for the NYT tend to be like most Lit majors... the
story doesn't matter to them nearly so much as the telling of it. So
books they like don't actually contain a story worth telling, but what
story is told is usually told well.

[The Black Knight]

Vanquished allegedly wrote:
> Now, if you placed someone like Ender in the typical teen drama about getting rid of the

> school bully, that'd hardly do justice to their characters, it'd be boring, etc.

Hah.

I think it'd be brilliant. Imagine a truly creative strategic genius
taking down a school bully... it would be, yes, a complete mismatch.
The point would be in how total the victory would be. A true
psychological, sociological, physical and legal obliteration of the
bully. Is it fair to the antagonist to be so completely outmatched by
the protagonist? No. But then life isn't fair.

Still, the problem then becomes one of not making it too easy. The
'bully' becomes but one of many antagonists, while Ender is
manipulating the authorities (setting the 'bully' up for major
criminal charges) as well as the entire school (subtly turning
everyone against 'the bully', which they don't even realize is
happening until it's time to pick sides) and even the family of 'the
bully'. Possibly there'd be manipulation of the media as well. The
idea has potential.

Remember, there are only so many heroic archetypes. Ender is a
Lancelot: aka 'heavyweight champion of the world'. The trick with such
a character is either make the conflict one that doesn't play to the
hero's strengths, or just wear him down with sheer numbers (which
changes the conflict into 'how much more can he handle' rather than
'can he handle this test') of challenges.

[EzzyB]

On Sep 22, 9:21 am, Bad Fred <badfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've heard the term "hook" as anything that will grab the reader's
> interests.  It also reminds me of Chekhov's quip that if you show a gun
> hanging from the wall in act one, it'd better get used by act 3.

This is true, the danger in it is that the reader thinks back and says
'whatever happened to that gun and why was it in the story'?' I take
a minimalist approach and try to not put anything in my stories that's
not required. Yes they are shorter and we've established here that
longer stories are better received, but at least you won't get any of
those morning wake-up 'shit, shower, and shave' scenes from me.

>
> I dunno is there is a lit-crit name of a "loop", but I think authors know to
> use reoccurring themes.

OK, reoccurring themes works, loop is easier to type :)

>
> How perfect must a character be?  There are online Mary Sue tests you can
> put your folks through.  Mine always fail them, of course, but somehow I
> think I make it work.  Nobody has ever complained that my gals are Mary Sues
> -- which means whatever it means.
>
> The Jonhnstone advice (which is more for drama, but I think it works):
>
> 1. Break routines,

My favorite. I call it blowing stereotypes. I mean I just finished a
story that included a child welfare worker who really was interested
in the welfare of a child! That may be a first on SOL.

>
> 2. Don't cancel,

You can, sometimes. It goes back to number one. I built up a lot of
sexual tension between a brother and sister then just let it go. I
did it on purpose because I was busting a stereotype.

>
> 3. Keep the action onstage,

I dislike the nasty bits. I simply couldn't write onstage action that
involved the abuse of a child so I flashed back to it. I'm not sure
if that makes me a bad writer or just a coward in that area but I
definitely fudged in this area to avoid my own discomfort.

>
> 4. Reincorporate.

Yeah, loop or whatever. Most don't do it often enough to make their
stories seem whole instead of serial.

>
> In a later book he adds, "Don't be clever.  Do the obvious thing."
>

Oh dear GOD! You got me on this one. My last story was called
'Anita's Rescue' and man did I ever get too clever with that. It was
intentionally meant to have a dual meaning (Anita's rescue of or
Anita's rescue by). It was also supposed to be the second story of
mine to end with the title (in this case Anita's rescue of). Yeah
clever right? Almost no one understood and I'm constantly explaining
it. If you have to explain it, that means you didn't do it right the
first time, so I'm guilty of this.

> To reincorporate is to bring your tuba back.  He says, if stuck for an idea,
> don't look forward, look back into your story.
>
> Don't cancel means if you introduce a dilemma, don't let it just *go away*
> on its own.
>

> Well, fiction is different from improv, but I see his point.  To "be
> obvious" is to make sure your story delivers what you promised the reader.
> I mean -- it should be clever in a basic sense.  But as he proceeds, your
> reader forms a sphere of expectation.  If you step *widely* out of that, he
> will be dissatisfied.
>

I suppose there is a corollary here and that would be to manage
expectations. I have an editor that smacks me upside the head when I
do any foreshadowing. I did it anyway (because I was being clever)
and EVERYONE jumped to the wrong conclusion. Of course being so
clever I had never thought of THAT conclusion. It didn't work out too
bad, but I think I'll refrain from it again in this kind of median. I
had to answer 15 E-mails assuring readers that nobody was getting
married! :)

That being said you HAVE to twist things up a bit. We're back to
number one again. How can you do the obvious and break routines at
the same time?

EzzyB

[Homer Vargas]

OK wanting every novel to be Ulysses is a different issue, not the kind of techniques or mechanics I was talking about
 

My stories can be read on:
http://www.asstr.org/files/Authors/Vargas
http://www.asstr.org/~Vargas/stories.html
http://www.mcstories.com
http://www.eroticstories.com
http://storiesonline.net
http://www.literotica.com
http://www.the-impregnorium.com

---

From: The Black Knight <cm0...@hotmail.com>
To: storiesonline <storie...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Thu, September 23, 2010 4:14:20 AM
Subject: Re: Story Recommendations

[Zine]

Ezzy,

The hook is your very first line in the story; ergo all the fuss about
first lines. Some consider it to be the first paragraph. Some, the
first chapter or even the first three chapters. But what you're
talking about is foreshadowing, a literary device.

The second thing you mention comes under character development,
specifically major changes in the character's behavior or thought
processes as a result of physical, mental or emotional personal
crisis, often called a transformative or life-changing or significant
emotional event, or a definitive moment -- as in the MC's choice will
redefine the character.

Not to be confused with the plot crisis that should arrive by the end
of chapter three for a novel, although they're not mutually
exclusive. A kid who bonds with a dragon and in doing so realizes
he's the last dragon rider and holds the fate of the world in his
hands is an example of both. The plot should change the main
characters as the story progresses, so change is a good thing.

Submission requirements tend to severely limit characterization.
Otherwise, characters can be whoever and whatever you need them to
be. But boring or stereotypical is not really an option.

Zine

[Sam]

On Sep 22, 6:40 pm, EzzyB <ez...@storiesonline.org> wrote:
> On Sep 22, 9:21 am, Bad Fred <badfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > How perfect must a character be?  There are online Mary Sue tests you can
> > put your folks through.  Mine always fail them, of course, but somehow I
> > think I make it work.  Nobody has ever complained that my gals are Mary Sues
> > -- which means whatever it means.

A well-written Rachel Sue, er. Mary Sue, can be enjoyable. I like
kick-ass characters, when they are sympathetic.

> > The Jonhnstone advice (which is more for drama, but I think it works):
>
> > 1. Break routines,
>
> My favorite.  I call it blowing stereotypes.  I mean I just finished a
> story that included a child welfare worker who really was interested
> in the welfare of a child!  That may be a first on SOL.

That worked well.

>
>
> > 2. Don't cancel,
>
> You can, sometimes.  It goes back to number one.  I built up a lot of
> sexual tension between a brother and sister then just let it go.  I
> did it on purpose because I was busting a stereotype.

I was ambivalent about it. It worked, but you could have dialed down
the teasing a bit if you weren't planning to go there.
Busting a stereotype is good. Deliberate misdirection can backfire
(not that you necessarily did that).

>
> > 3. Keep the action onstage,
>
> I dislike the nasty bits.  I simply couldn't write onstage action that
> involved the abuse of a child so I flashed back to it.  I'm not sure
> if that makes me a bad writer or just a coward in that area but I
> definitely fudged in this area to avoid my own discomfort.

It worked just fine. Consistency of tone has value as well. Graphic
description of Cheri's abuse would have been a sharp departure.

> > In a later book he adds, "Don't be clever.  Do the obvious thing."
>
> Oh dear GOD!  You got me on this one.  My last story was called
> 'Anita's Rescue' and man did I ever get too clever with that.  It was
> intentionally meant to have a dual meaning (Anita's rescue of or
> Anita's rescue by).  It was also supposed to be the second story of
> mine to end with the title (in this case Anita's rescue of).  Yeah
> clever right?  Almost no one understood and I'm constantly explaining
> it.  If you have to explain it, that means you didn't do it right the
> first time, so I'm guilty of this.

It worked. But I must admin it was a far more subtle (or far more
weak) plot connection than "Rebecca Danced."

>
> > To reincorporate is to bring your tuba back.  He says, if stuck for an idea,
> > don't look forward, look back into your story.
>
> > Don't cancel means if you introduce a dilemma, don't let it just *go away*
> > on its own.
>
> > Well, fiction is different from improv, but I see his point.  To "be
> > obvious" is to make sure your story delivers what you promised the reader.
> > I mean -- it should be clever in a basic sense.  But as he proceeds, your
> > reader forms a sphere of expectation.  If you step *widely* out of that, he
> > will be dissatisfied.
>
> I suppose there is a corollary here and that would be to manage
> expectations.  I have an editor that smacks me upside the head when I
> do any foreshadowing.  I did it anyway (because I was being clever)
> and EVERYONE jumped to the wrong conclusion.  Of course being so
> clever I had never thought of THAT conclusion.  It didn't work out too
> bad, but I think I'll refrain from it again in this kind of median.  I
> had to answer 15 E-mails assuring readers that nobody was getting
> married!  :)
>
> That being said you HAVE to twist things up a bit.  We're back to
> number one again.  How can you do the obvious and break routines at
> the same time?

I haven't quite figured that out. But I think you did pretty well in
the two Chaos stories.

[The Black Knight]

EzzyB allegedly wrote:
> How can you do the obvious and break routines at the same time?

Foreshadowing.

So long as there are clues (even if they aren't blindingly obvious)
about what will happen, then that thing happening - even if it seems
out of character or whatever - is the obvious thing. Readers who
complain can then be bitch-slapped with "Go back and read chapter 11.
The double-cross was being planned then. If you didn't figure it out,
oh well." Some movies do this really well.

[EzzyB]

On Sep 22, 7:19 pm, Zine <mlle.euphros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ezzy,
>
> The hook is your very first line in the story; ergo all the fuss about
> first lines.  Some consider it to be the first paragraph.  Some, the
> first chapter or even the first three chapters.  But what you're
> talking about is foreshadowing, a literary device.

OK, having never taken a creative writing class I'll accept your
definition of a 'hook'. I'm not sure what you call something you put
into a story the will become a minor plot item or satisfy a particular
plot requirement later on.

Certainly it's not foreshadowing, that's a sentence like 'I never knew
what losing that amulet would mean.' It's a bridge to the future and
they are very dicey. I'm not a fan of them but many are. I think
Spock calls the ex post facto.

>
> The second thing you mention comes under character development,
> specifically major changes in the character's behavior or thought
> processes as a result of physical, mental or emotional personal
> crisis, often called a transformative or life-changing or significant
> emotional event, or a definitive moment -- as in the MC's choice will
> redefine the character.

Yeah but those are really hard to define to readers. If you've never
had an irrational fear it really is hard to explain. I think part of
that is why my readers tend to tell me (not many, but some) that
character is 'too perfect'. He doesn't jump over the side of his boat
in the middle of the night after a scared little girl because he's
just a super-nice guy, he's just a bit looney. I'm not sure it's
something that most readers understand. I loved anything to do with
heights and flying until I was in a helicopter crash 15 years ago.
Now I can't climb a step-ladder. My rational brain laughs at my
irrational brain but that doesn't help much. I'm not sure how many
people understand that. That character has an irrational fear over
the safety of young girls.

>
> Not to be confused with the plot crisis that should arrive by the end
> of chapter three for a novel, although they're not mutually
> exclusive.  A kid who bonds with a dragon and in doing so realizes
> he's the last dragon rider and holds the fate of the world in his
> hands is an example of both.  The plot should change the main
> characters as the story progresses, so change is a good thing.

This is very true. My feedback was shouting for a sequel to a fairly
successful story so I wrote them one. I spent six chapters just
continuing on and catching readers up. After two or three they were
like 'when are we going to meet Anita?'. So I learned a lesson
there. The readers didn't love the story so much, they loved the
characters and they were much more interested in what those characters
did next.

>
> Submission requirements tend to severely limit characterization.
> Otherwise, characters can be whoever and whatever you need them to
> be.  But boring or stereotypical is not really an option.

Stereotypical is a touchy thing. You most certainly can and should
use stereotypes in some situations. I remember a discussion we had
last year over a piece that involved two thugs. It was a great use of
stereotyping simply by using their size and language and you KNEW
these were two hardcore gangster enforcers, even their names were
perfect. It took very little effort after that on the author's part
to draw you a picture of just who these two brutes were. I think Ken
Randall's guide on SOL discusses the use of stereotypes
successfully. I think I used one for a character describing her as
'a bottle blond cheerleader'. That invokes a stereotype that is fine
for a character who will only be around for a paragraph or so. Again,
you don't want to use this too often, but you can get away with it for
minor characters.

EzzyB

[Zine]

Ezzy,

Foreshadowing is a hint of what may come in the future. This hint can
come in the form of an object or an event. For an object, BF already
handed that to you on a silver platter with the mention of Chekhov's
Gun which as it is used today specifically identifies objects used to
foreshadow. But originally Chekhov's Gun was used to mean repetitive
designation. I'm of the school of thought that Chekhov's Gun should
retain its original meaning. There are other types of foreshadowing
such as formal patterning. Probably more often than not, the
Chekhov's Gun is used to plug plot holes rather than help the reader
along, reduce shock in order to manage reader suspension of disbelief,
smooth transitions, create anticipation or suspense, etc. Some
consider Chekhov's Gun a plot device, used derogatorily.

As far as stupid readers go, I think that between SOL and ASSTR I can
show you at least one stupid "writer", with or without formal
education, certification or training in creative writing or any other
kind for every stupid reader you can show me.

The main character in The Hunt for Red October developed a fear of
flying if not heights as a result of crashing in a helo during his
service as a Marine officer. A character flaw, perhaps, that he
managed to overcome at least temporarily with determination and
conviction. He went all in and proceeded to jump from a helo into the
deadly cold waters of the North Atlantic to prevent an international
incident and secure some valuable assets for the US. I tend to think
the majority of readers and viewers got it. But when you have 6
thousand downloads and you fret over 2 readers who didn't get it, for
example, I really think you're creating problems for yourself.

As far as grammar and anything else having to do with writing goes,
sometimes the exception becomes the rule. When that is the case is
difficult to determine, but a writer usually develops a feel for it
with experience over time. The only thing that is certain in the
field of writing is that there is no "Rosetta stone" that will make
everything wonderously clear. :) Mostly, literary advice is a case
of Through the Looking Glass:

"JABBERWOCKY.

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

`Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!'

He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

`And has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
He chortled in his joy.

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

... `Somehow it seems to fill my head with ideas -- only I don't
exactly know what they are!'"

Zine

[Bad Fred]

A lot here!  I'll make a couple points now (just off a plane and running on 2 cylinders.)

I'll think I'll do the "intersperse my text" thingy.  I hope it's readable.

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 6:40 PM, EzzyB <ez...@storiesonline.org> wrote:

>
> 3. Keep the action onstage,

I dislike the nasty bits.  I simply couldn't write onstage action that
involved the abuse of a child so I flashed back to it.  I'm not sure
if that makes me a bad writer or just a coward in that area but I
definitely fudged in this area to avoid my own discomfort.

Keep in mind, Johnstone is talking about drama, so you have to filter what he says.  By "keep the action on stage" he wants to avoid actors chatting about other characters, in effect, actors *telling a story*.  They should *act out* a story.  This gets a little trickier in prose, since we can get away with that.  Anyhow, it certainly does not require that you *show everything*.  Just that, if something is important and dramatic, show *it*.

 

>
> In a later book he adds, "Don't be clever.  Do the obvious thing."
>

Oh dear GOD!  You got me on this one.  My last story was called
'Anita's Rescue' and man did I ever get too clever with that.  It was
intentionally meant to have a dual meaning (Anita's rescue of or
Anita's rescue by).  It was also supposed to be the second story of
mine to end with the title (in this case Anita's rescue of).  Yeah
clever right?  Almost no one understood and I'm constantly explaining
it.  If you have to explain it, that means you didn't do it right the
first time, so I'm guilty of this.

Keep in mind, being too "clever" is a big problem in improv theater.  Folks don't want to seem banal, so they do something "avant garde" like pretending to puke whenever someone mentions a type of bird, or some other stupid shit.

"Be obvious" is his way to combat that tendency.  For a fiction writer, I think it simply means to keep in mind there is a "sphere of expectation", and if you step way out of that, they'll shake their heads and wonder what they're reading.

It doesn't mean you shouldn't -- you know -- actually be clever.  Just don't force it.

Anyhow, what I take from it is that it's fine to build up a scene, then have what *should* happen just happen.  My present thing (a non BadFred thing) has the heroine pointing her gun at her enemy for several paragraphs while his associates abandon him, bystanders flee, her g/f calls their commanding officer, she gets permission.

Then she fucking shoots his ass.  I think it reads very well.

That being said you HAVE to twist things up a bit.  We're back to
number one again.  How can you do the obvious and break routines at
the same time?

A couple of his examples:

Two guys climb a mountain.   A documentary, but not a story.  They find a crashed plane with survivors.  A story.

A guy and girl argue.  Totally routine.  Boring.  In the middle of the argument, she jabs a syringe into his neck then hides in the bathroom.  Routine broken.

Canceling:  The fluid was just saline.  He gets better and they make up.

Clever:  The fluid was guava juice and he grows a tail.  (This could happen in improv.)

Obvious:  hepatitis?  HIV?  morphine?

So, pick morphine because the first two are too horrible.  So, he passes out.  Blue lips barely breathing.  Dump him at the hospital?  Boring.

Do the obvious thing.  I'm not sure what it is though.  Any suggestions?

 

[The Black Knight]

Bad Fred allegedly wrote:
> So, pick morphine because the first two are too horrible.  So, he passes
> out.  Blue lips barely breathing.  Dump him at the hospital?  Boring.
>
> Do the obvious thing.  I'm not sure what it is though.  Any suggestions?

She leaves him there and (after lifting his wallet, car keys, and
Glock) makes her escape from the pimp and/or government agent as he
lies on the floor.
That's the obvious thing.

[Bad Fred]

Sure. I'll buy it.  I'm not sure whee to go from there.

On Sep 23, 2010 2:11 AM, "The Black Knight" <cm0...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Bad Fred allegedly wrote:
> So, pick morphine because the first two are too horrible.  So, he passes...

[Bad Fred]

I do want to add, it's a bit silly for Ezzy to be taking this as advice, since his numbers like triple mine easily. He must be doing something right.

(I mean, I haven't liked his stuff. But I don't think he should care what I think. I'm one guy with rather particular taste.)

I see this more as conversation and sharing.

On Sep 23, 2010 1:48 AM, "Bad Fred" <badf...@gmail.com> wrote:

A lot here!  I'll make a couple points now (just off a plane and running on 2 cylinders.)

I'll think I'll do the "intersperse my text" thingy.  I hope it's readable.

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 6:40 PM, EzzyB <ez...@storiesonline.org> wrote:
>
> >

> > 3. Keep the action...

Keep in mind, Johnstone is talking about drama, so you have to filter what he says.  By "keep the action on stage" he wants to avoid actors chatting about other characters, in effect, actors *telling a story*.  They should *act out* a story.  This gets a little trickier in prose, since we can get away with that.  Anyhow, it certainly does not require that you *show everything*.  Just that, if something is important and dramatic, show *it*.

 

>
>
> >
> > In a later book he adds, "Don't be clever.  Do the obvious thing."
> >
>

> Oh dear GOD!...

Keep in mind, being too "clever" is a big problem in improv theater.  Folks don't want to seem banal, so they do something "avant garde" like pretending to puke whenever someone mentions a type of bird, or some other stupid shit.

"Be obvious" is his way to combat that tendency.  For a fiction writer, I think it simply means to keep in mind there is a "sphere of expectation", and if you step way out of that, they'll shake their heads and wonder what they're reading.

It doesn't mean you shouldn't -- you know -- actually be clever.  Just don't force it.

Anyhow, what I take from it is that it's fine to build up a scene, then have what *should* happen just happen.  My present thing (a non BadFred thing) has the heroine pointing her gun at her enemy for several paragraphs while his associates abandon him, bystanders flee, her g/f calls their commanding officer, she gets permission.

Then she fucking shoots his ass.  I think it reads very well.

>
> That being said you HAVE to twist things up a bit.  We're back to

> number one again.  How can y...

A couple of his examples:

Two guys climb a mountain.   A documentary, but not a story.  They find a crashed plane with survivors.  A story.

A guy and girl argue.  Totally routine.  Boring.  In the middle of the argument, she jabs a syringe into his neck then hides in the bathroom.  Routine broken.

Canceling:  The fluid was just saline.  He gets better and they make up.

Clever:  The fluid was guava juice and he grows a tail.  (This could happen in improv.)

Obvious:  hepatitis?  HIV?  morphine?

So, pick morphine because the first two are too horrible.  So, he passes out.  Blue lips barely breathing.  Dump him at the hospital?  Boring.

Do the obvious thing.  I'm not sure what it is though.  Any suggestions?

 

[Tim Merrigan]

Taking him to the hospital and into the Emergency room would be boring, literally dumping him at the hospital, i.e. kicking him out of a moving car at the emergency room door, maybe not so much.

[EzzyB]

On Sep 22, 8:50 pm, Sam <samuelmicha...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > 1. Break routines,
>
> > My favorite.  I call it blowing stereotypes.  I mean I just finished a
> > story that included a child welfare worker who really was interested
> > in the welfare of a child!  That may be a first on SOL.

> That worked well.

It was well received. I got one feedback who claimed to be the son of
a child welfare worker who thanked me for that portrayal.

>
> > > 2. Don't cancel,
>
> > You can, sometimes.  It goes back to number one.  I built up a lot of
> > sexual tension between a brother and sister then just let it go.  I
> > did it on purpose because I was busting a stereotype.
>
> I was ambivalent about it.  It worked, but you could have dialed down
> the teasing a bit if you weren't planning to go there.
> Busting a stereotype is good.  Deliberate misdirection can backfire
> (not that you necessarily did that).

I was a bit overbearing with it, I admit. Incest, as I've admitted
here before is a bit of a squick of mine. It seems to be the easiest
'naughty' thing to write about and I'm oh so tired of writers using it
as a plot device. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one in the world
who never wanted to fuck his mother or (three) sisters. It was me
lashing out against those authors who use it so casually. I had half
my readers convinced there was a Tony/Rebecca/Tina three-way in the
offing.

>
> > > 3. Keep the action onstage,
>
> > I dislike the nasty bits.  I simply couldn't write onstage action that
> > involved the abuse of a child so I flashed back to it.  I'm not sure
> > if that makes me a bad writer or just a coward in that area but I
> > definitely fudged in this area to avoid my own discomfort.
>
> It worked just fine.  Consistency of tone has value as well.  Graphic
> description of Cheri's abuse would have been a sharp departure.

The truth is even worse though. I had planned to do a complete book
(the story was going to be told in three parts) about Cheri. I
chickened out. Like I said call me a coward because I simply can't
write that kind of thing, I don't mind. It's not far from the last
comment about incest though. We get so inured to it and it becomes so
common as a plot device it kind of loses it's impact. Yeah, I think
it worked better the way it was done.

> > > In a later book he adds, "Don't be clever.  Do the obvious thing."
>
> > Oh dear GOD!  You got me on this one.  My last story was called
> > 'Anita's Rescue' and man did I ever get too clever with that.  It was
> > intentionally meant to have a dual meaning (Anita's rescue of or
> > Anita's rescue by).  It was also supposed to be the second story of
> > mine to end with the title (in this case Anita's rescue of).  Yeah
> > clever right?  Almost no one understood and I'm constantly explaining
> > it.  If you have to explain it, that means you didn't do it right the
> > first time, so I'm guilty of this.
>
> It worked.  But I must admin it was a far more subtle (or far more
> weak) plot connection than "Rebecca Danced."

Well it was far less 'in your face'. I think I tried to take things
to another level as a writer and just got way to smarty-pants for my
own good. I won't do that again.

> > > To reincorporate is to bring your tuba back.  He says, if stuck for an idea,
> > > don't look forward, look back into your story.
>
> > > Don't cancel means if you introduce a dilemma, don't let it just *go away*
> > > on its own.
>
> > > Well, fiction is different from improv, but I see his point.  To "be
> > > obvious" is to make sure your story delivers what you promised the reader.
> > > I mean -- it should be clever in a basic sense.  But as he proceeds, your
> > > reader forms a sphere of expectation.  If you step *widely* out of that, he
> > > will be dissatisfied.
>
> > I suppose there is a corollary here and that would be to manage
> > expectations.  I have an editor that smacks me upside the head when I
> > do any foreshadowing.  I did it anyway (because I was being clever)
> > and EVERYONE jumped to the wrong conclusion.  Of course being so
> > clever I had never thought of THAT conclusion.  It didn't work out too
> > bad, but I think I'll refrain from it again in this kind of median.  I
> > had to answer 15 E-mails assuring readers that nobody was getting
> > married!  :)
>
> > That being said you HAVE to twist things up a bit.  We're back to
> > number one again.  How can you do the obvious and break routines at
> > the same time?
>
> I haven't quite figured that out.  But I think you did pretty well in
> the two Chaos stories.

I try. There are so many stories that do so many things exactly the
same way that I try to break those molds. It is the same teen fiction
kind of stuff, but there is no reason why you have to follow the same
themes and same plots. Why write if you are just rehashing the same
old stuff?

Thanks Sam, I enjoy discussing my stories and you had some very good
points. We rarely do that here because we don't all enjoy our fellow
authors writings. Nothing wrong with that, we tend to share writing as
a passion but not our tastes in the results of that.

[EzzyB]

On Sep 23, 1:33 am, Zine <mlle.euphros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ezzy,
>
> Foreshadowing is a hint of what may come in the future.  This hint can
> come in the form of an object or an event.  For an object, BF already
> handed that to you on a silver platter with the mention of Chekhov's
> Gun which as it is used today specifically identifies objects used to
> foreshadow.  But originally Chekhov's Gun was used to mean repetitive
> designation.  I'm of the school of thought that Chekhov's Gun should
> retain its original meaning.  There are other types of foreshadowing
> such as formal patterning.  Probably more often than not, the
> Chekhov's Gun is used to plug plot holes rather than help the reader
> along, reduce shock in order to manage reader suspension of disbelief,
> smooth transitions, create anticipation or suspense, etc.  Some
> consider Chekhov's Gun a plot device, used derogatorily.

I"m fine with it. I was just trying to say that gun is LOADED. I
made a mistake that led my readers to believe one thing was going to
happen (in retrospect the most obvious) when I planned something so
far off the scale it wasn't even close. Clever? Wasn't intended
(well the result was). But when I said in this story (paraphrased)
'the consequences of being a ship's captain would lead to to legal
consequences no one could predict' my inbox flooded with people
telling me the obvious thing they knew about a ship's captain, he can
perform marriages! I really didn't mean to misdirect my readers that
way so my foreshadowing failed miserably.

>
> As far as stupid readers go, I think that between SOL and ASSTR I can
> show you at least one stupid "writer", with or without formal
> education, certification or training in creative writing or any other
> kind for every stupid reader you can show me.
>
> The main character in The Hunt for Red October developed a fear of
> flying if not heights as a result of crashing in a helo during his
> service as a Marine officer.  A character flaw, perhaps, that he
> managed to overcome at least temporarily with determination and
> conviction.  He went all in and proceeded to jump from a helo into the
> deadly cold waters of the North Atlantic to prevent an international
> incident and secure some valuable assets for the US.  I tend to think
> the majority of readers and viewers got it. But when you have 6
> thousand downloads and you fret over 2 readers who didn't get it, for
> example, I really think you're creating problems for yourself.

I never now and never will call my readers 'stupid'. Some of us have
different life experiences. Let's face it, not a lot of people have
plowed a helicopter into a concrete tarmac and walked away from it.
No way as a writer can I expect my readers to understand my unique
experiences. That would be the height of hubris on my part.

Readers are why we write. Period. I've said it before and I'll say
it again, if you aren't writing to be read then you are simply
masturbating at your keyboard. I simply don't understand those that
come on this forum saying 'I only write for me'. If you do it for you
then you are the only one who gives a shit where your commas and
semicolon's are placed. So no I reject the notion that readers are
'stupid'. It's our place as writers to make them 'get it'. WE are
responsible for that.

Me either!

EzzyB

[Vanquished]

On 22/09/2010 23:32, The Black Knight wrote:
> I think it'd be brilliant. Imagine a truly creative strategic genius
> taking down a school bully... it would be, yes, a complete mismatch.
> The point would be in how total the victory would be. A true
> psychological, sociological, physical and legal obliteration of the
> bully. Is it fair to the antagonist to be so completely outmatched by
> the protagonist? No. But then life isn't fair.

Ok, granted, perhaps I should concede defeat :-) I suppose my point is
there has to be some form of balance, otherwise the conflict which
drives the story (and I very much think conflict, internal or external
to the characters, has to drive the story) would be very diluted. So in
this case it's no longer Ender against the bully, it's more like Ender
against the whole social matrix that made the bully possible so to speak ;-)

Hell, now you've almost convinced me to write it, though I haven't
written fanfic thus far. :-)

--Vanquished.

[EzzyB]

On Sep 23, 2:37 am, Bad Fred <badfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I do want to add, it's a bit silly for Ezzy to be taking this as advice,
> since his numbers like triple mine easily. He must be doing something right.

I wouldn't ask these questions if I didn't think I had something to
learn BF. I don't always take advice, but I always read it and accept
it at face value. I'm learning the craft just like most of the rest
of us are. I'm more mainstream as far as readers go, and that
accounts for the numbers. That certainly doesn't mean I'm 'better'
than any writer on this forum.

A lot of us talk here daily, and a lot of us really don't care for the
subject matter the other writes. That's OK, it's not the writing,
it's just the subject matter (squicks or whatnot). I'm just tossing
out ideas to help me (and maybe other writers who read) get better at
what we do. Please don't think I'm some kind of prima-donna.

EzzyB

[Bad Fred]

Right.  That's cool.  I just got the impression that the "do the obvious thing" was hitting you hard, and I wanted to soften the blow.  More so, I wanted to avoid the pitfall folks fall into where they say, "I broke rule X, therefore my thing is bad!"  That's poppycock.  *Obviously* your thing is good -- I mean -- I'm not your target audience, but you have a strong following.

Plus, all of Jonhstone's ideas, because they're for theater, need to get reinterpreted for prose.  I like that.  I hate the cookie-cutter style of most "how to write good" things.  By going to drama for a source of ideas, I avoid that.

(On the other hand, I just read this book:

 http://www.amazon.com/Self-Editing-Fiction-Writers-Second-Yourself/dp/0060545690/ref=sr_1_1?s=gateway&ie=UTF8&qid=1285252790&sr=8-1

It was passingly good, I think, given my meager ability to know these things.)

For me, the key point, this big whammy, the *you must not fail to do this*, is simply:  have a character who *wants* things, and *does stuff* to get it.

I think I've said that before.  :) 

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 6:01 AM, EzzyB <ez...@storiesonline.org> wrote:

I wouldn't ask these questions if I didn't think I had something to
learn BF.  I don't always take advice, but I always read it and accept
it at face value.  I'm learning the craft just like most of the rest
of us are.  I'm more mainstream as far as readers go, and that
accounts for the numbers.  That certainly doesn't mean I'm 'better'
than any writer on this forum.

A lot of us talk here daily, and a lot of us really don't care for the
subject matter the other writes.  That's OK, it's not the writing,
it's just the subject matter (squicks or whatnot).  I'm just tossing
out ideas to help me (and maybe other writers who read) get better at
what we do.  Please don't think I'm some kind of prima-donna.

EzzyB

[Switch Blayde]

> From: badf...@gmail.com

> For me, [snip] have a character who *wants* things, and *does stuff* to get it.
 
And -- and it's a BIG and -- has someone or something in his way.
 
Switch

 

[Bad Fred]

Right.  Absolutely.

However, I don't like to construct an antagonist just to be that.  What I've been doing lately is just creating the principle players and giving them each motives and pressures.  I've found that almost always provides sufficient adversity, since well drawn characters almost never have consistent goals.

Here is another nugget of thought:

In real life we *avoid* conflict almost all of the time.  We swallow it.  We shove it down.  How many times in the day do you have to choke on a bit of failure or disappointment just to stop from killing someone?  I mean -- sit back and think about it.  Every day, day after day, all these millions of people, most of whom aren't getting quite what they want form life, but they don't all go apeshit and start killing each other.  They accept their meager lives.

Your character *is not* one of those people.  Perhaps at first, but not on *that day*.

[The Black Knight]

Bad Fred allegedly wrote:
> back and think about it.  Every day, day after day, all these millions of people, most of whom aren't getting quite what they want from life, but they don't all go apeshit and start killing each other.  They accept their meager lives.

>
> Your character *is not* one of those people.  Perhaps at first, but not on *that day*.

"Falling Down" was a GREAT example of this exact premise. (In term of,
it certainly was built on precisely the premise, rather than the
overall quality involved.)

[The Black Knight]

Switch Blayde allegedly wrote:
> > For me, [snip] have a character who *wants* things, and *does stuff* to get it.
>
> And -- and it's a BIG and -- has someone or something in his way.

Except there's many, many different possibilities here.

Consider:
Man vs. Man - the really blatant 'hero/villain' setup
Man vs. Environment - not just nature, could also be society, or a job
setting, or...
Man vs. Self - overcoming one's own ambivalence or some inner
conflict...

An example here: Morgan's "6 Month Turnaround" was (somewhat)
criticized for lack of conflict, but the fact was that the conflict in
the story was never really meant to be around the romance, but rather
external to the romance. Now, the conflict(s) involved in improving
the company were possibly too easily overcome... I notice many writers
tend to make weak villains, so that seems to be a common problem. (I
tried for a while to convince Aubie56, for instance, to make
intelligent villains in his westerns. He never did buy into what I was
telling him, though.) But strong villains make any story. What would
Nightmare on Elm Street be if Freddy wasn't such a bad-ass, for
example?

The point is, if people have to 'do stuff' to get what they want,
there's always an obstacle. How difficult that obstacle is to
overcome is really the only issue. If your main character is a Prince
of Amber, just about anything he wants is easily enough obtainable,
until he has to go up against a family member... just because no other
obstacle is that much of a problem. Unless, of course, he has to fight
his own nature to get what he wants.

[Bad Fred]

Yeah, I really liked that movie.  I think it got caught up in a lot of the racial politics of the time -- you know, the whole "white anger" thing -- and that was unfortunate.  The movie *was not* about that.

Anyhow, yeah.  :)

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 11:52 AM, The Black Knight <cm0...@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Falling Down" was a GREAT example of this exact premise. (In term of,
it certainly was built on precisely the premise, rather than the
overall quality involved.)

[Bad Fred]

Heh.  This is a familiar problem for me.  In post-Rachel BadFred, I'm very careful to give my protagonist weaknesses.

[NoGoodNick]

GREAT discussion. This is why I like reading in here. Rather than "how
to"s or technical stuff, this is the theories of writing, and
discussions of what works and what doesn't for various writers in our
community.

> But strong villains make any story. What would Nightmare on Elm Street be if Freddy wasn't such a bad-ass, for
example?

I've got the opposite obsession. I tend to REALLY dislike superhuman,
superEvil villains. They're all so overdrawn, cartoonish that they
just aren't believable. Never liked Freddy much, always thought he was
just plain too silly to be scared of. When authors start building up a
villain that apparently knows everything, anticipates everthing,
second guesses everything, then you just know they're going to have to
invest a superman type character to combat him. Not every story needs
to be about the future of the universe. Sometimes simple conflicts are
fine. Many times they do end up too weak, but don't go to the other
extreme just because of a few bad cases.

[Bad Fred]

In one of the RPGs I played, my favorite villain was the horrid geek kid who had an obsessive crush on my character (a girl).  She couldn't just kill him, 'cause his family was very wealthy and powerful and could frustrate her other goals.  She couldn't just ignore him 'cause he had enough money to keep making trouble for her.

To solve that took subtlety.

[Bad Fred]

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 5:41 AM, EzzyB <ez...@storiesonline.org> wrote:

I've said it before and I'll say
it again, if you aren't writing to be read then you are simply
masturbating at your keyboard.

I know I'm not one to talk, but that really is a shitty thing to say.  I mean -- you seem like a nice enough fellow most of the time, but then you put on your asshole hat and let out one of these.  Why?

I mean, I get that some folks like to stir up shit, and we get used to that.  But why you?

Being creative is *so much* better than being a knuckle-dragging, passive "media consumer".  Who cares why someone writes, as long as they write?  Or paint.  Or juggle.  Or arrange glass beads.  Anything but watch television.

(I'm not going to bother pointing out all the ways it's a false dichotomy.  Anyone who can't see that isn't worth talking to.)

[Tim Merrigan]

On 9/23/2010 9:06 AM, The Black Knight wrote:

Switch Blayde allegedly wrote:

For me, [snip] have a character who *wants* things, and *does stuff* to get it.

And -- and it's a BIG and -- has someone or something in his way.

Except there's many, many different possibilities here.

Consider:
Man vs. Man - the really blatant 'hero/villain' setup
Man vs. Environment - not just nature, could also be society, or a job
setting, or...
Man vs. Self - overcoming one's own ambivalence or some inner
conflict...

An example here: Morgan's "6 Month Turnaround" was (somewhat)
criticized for lack of conflict, but the fact was that the conflict in
the story was never really meant to be around the romance, but rather
external to the romance. Now, the conflict(s) involved in improving
the company were possibly too easily overcome... I notice many writers
tend to make weak villains, so that seems to be a common problem. (I
tried for a while to convince Aubie56, for instance, to make
intelligent villains in his westerns. He never did buy into what I was
telling him, though.) But strong villains make any story. What would
Nightmare on Elm Street be if Freddy wasn't such a bad-ass, for
example?

Nothing, and a bad example.  That's a villain driven story in that the villain is highly fleshed out, continues from story to story, and the character one follows, while the "heroes" are cardboard and constantly changing.  In fact some (most) of them are cannon (um, claw) fodder.  And the conflict is man vs. man specifically, how will the villain be defeated this time?

The point is, if people have to 'do stuff' to get what they want,
there's always an obstacle. How difficult that  obstacle is to
overcome is really the only issue. If your main character is a Prince
of Amber, just about anything he wants is easily enough obtainable,
until he has to go up against a family member... just because no other
obstacle is that much of a problem. Unless, of course, he has to fight
his own nature to get what he wants.

[EzzyB]

Yeah, I kind of lead my readers down the primrose path with a bit of
'foreshadowing' when I mentioned a character as being the captain of a
ship. The one thing everyone knows that a ship's captain can do is
marry people. I, of course, completely forgot about that obvious
assumption of my readers. I had something else in mind all the time.
So in that case I think the rule is true and I did break it pretty
badly. It looked as if I was deliberately misleading the reader and I
didn't mean to do that (don't demean your readers, they don't like
it).

It proved my editor, who hates foreshadowing, absolutely correct. I
just shouldn't have included that one stupid sentence. It wasn't
required and just added confusion.

On the other hand it did prompt me to change a few things in later
chapters so at least I could learn from it.

The book looks interesting, but I'm pretty sure I've proven over and
over and over that I can't edit my own work. I'm hopeless.

EzzyB

On Sep 23, 10:42 am, Bad Fred <badfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Right.  That's cool.  I just got the impression that the "do the obvious
> thing" was hitting you hard, and I wanted to soften the blow.  More so, I
> wanted to avoid the pitfall folks fall into where they say, "I broke rule X,
> therefore my thing is bad!"  That's poppycock.  *Obviously* your thing is
> good -- I mean -- I'm not your target audience, but you have a strong
> following.
>
> Plus, all of Jonhstone's ideas, because they're for theater, need to get
> reinterpreted for prose.  I like that.  I hate the cookie-cutter style of
> most "how to write good" things.  By going to drama for a source of ideas, I
> avoid that.
>
> (On the other hand, I just read this book:
>

> http://www.amazon.com/Self-Editing-Fiction-Writers-Second-Yourself/dp...

[Bad Fred]

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 6:02 PM, EzzyB <ez...@storiesonline.org> wrote:

(don't demean your readers, they don't like it).

The readers who send me nice little feedback messages -- even just a "thanks" -- are great!  I love them.  They are rare and wonderful people of infinite grace.

The rest can fuck off.

:)

 

[EzzyB]

Thanks Nick, I think that's what I was trying to say and just didn't
phrase it correctly. I think I said 'you don't always need a
boogeyman'. Antagonists can be environmental (survival saga) or just
plain ordinary everyday things (a medical condition). It's important
to move beyond the thought that an antagonist has to be a human being
with contrary goals. I have one story (OK its the incomplete one)
where the 'antagonist' is the inherent shyness of one of the main
characters. I guess that mostly fits the man vs environment label.

I suppose it works best in romance and light drama that I favor
writing though.

EzzyB

[bondi beach]

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 2:41 AM, EzzyB <ez...@storiesonline.org> wrote:

masturbating at your keyboard.  I simply don't understand those that
come on this forum saying 'I only write for me'.  If you do it for you

Not only do I not understand those writers, I flat-out don't believe them when they say that. I super don't believe the ones who add that they absolutely won't respond to readers. Hello? If you don't care what others think, why are you posting at all? And why do you leave an e-mail address if you don't care what readers say and won't respond?

Let me be clear: it's one thing to say "I write for myself," meaning "I'm writing the story the way I want to tell it," and I couldn't agree more---assuming you aren't writing to someone else's requirements, of course. It's the "I don't care what readers think" line that is pretty unbelievable.

In other words, there's a lot of protesting too much in those statements. Which makes them bullshit. Which means they aren't worth the electrons used to write them.

bb

[EzzyB]

Exactly BB. Writing is no different from any other performing art.
It is done for an audience and if you don't realize that, then (to
paraphrase a small green guy) 'that is why you fail.'

That's not exactly true, writing niche stories for a niche audience is
fine. Complaining that you don't have a bigger audience for those
stories is futile. There are only so many people who want to read
your teen-dog-cuckhold-werewolf story. It's probably a masterpiece,
but eh .... pardon me if I pass on it.

EzzyB