Okay. Detail.
I've read some very good stories today. One was exceptionally short - a retelling of sleeping beauty, but with an entirely different and satisfying ending. It clocked in at under 1000 words, but contained an exceptional amount of detail.
Note: It told an entire story in under 1000 words. The details that it picked were vitally important. They lent themselves to the mood, what the character noticed, and showed us how the in-story world structured itself. It showed us what was important to the characters. It lent a rhythm and cadence to the story. It also showed us what was important plot wise.
And that's probably the three most important jobs of detail in narrative: To situate and anchor the reader, to give rhythm to your paragraphs, and to tell us when to pay attention.
Firstly, on anchoring the reader:
The easiest way to explain and think about this is to compare two genres. Lets go... contemporary romance and fantasy. Say both books have Character A walking into a room and Character B waiting in the room to talk to them. You have a myriad number of things to describe, lots of narration to provide. So how much detail do you include?
Given that we're talking specifically about anchoring the reader? The fantasy is probably going to include more detail than the contemp romance. In the fantasy, I would focus on the things in the room that tell the POV character who this stranger is, maybe focus on the things that he's either wearing that can tell us about his status, how these two relate, ect.
But more than that, I can describe things to add to world-building. When my character leans up against a desk and notes with surprise that it's made of wood -because wood is generally spelled into uselessness by the woodland fae, and thus mighty expensive - that's interesting because it shows you a bit about the world, and about how the character relates to it. She hasn't treated this expensive thing in a blasé manner, so she probably can't afford it. Which means they're meeting in the room of someone wealthy, and that this conversation is probably related to those of wealth.
Note, I don't do much more in that example other than describe the table through the POV of the character, and her surprise at it being there. This piece of narrative description isn't just describing something, it's giving insight into character, the social structures of the world, the fact that this world has a magic system, and also hints at the involvement of others in this conversation about to come up. It's not just describing something - you're making those words work for you.
In the contemp romance, the details would focus more on the characters, and how they relate to the room. Whether Character B seems comfortable in the space, whether his clothes suggest something about status, or where he's been in the last five minutes. The descriptions may focus on the things the Character A finds attractive about him, or how he uses the objects in the room.
We know what a room looks like in our world. (This is presuming this contemp romance is based in a western country.) It doesn't need describing or explaining because it doesn't add anything to the story other than a detailed description. Most readers do fine with a basic description to figure out where they are and what's going on. Detail is used to try and negate that confusion and to situation the reader in the characters and the world you're creating.
This leads nicely onto my next point : detail tells the reader what is important in the scene.
Say you've just started a book. There's a basic description of a street, and then the author spends a paragraph describing an old, beaten up car; the way it's out of place, the way it hasn't moved for days, the fact that is has a myriad of scratches in the paint down the left side.
As a reader, I'm placing my bets on that car being important in some way, shape or form. I am now focused on the car. If done well, the author may have even built up some anticipation about the car.
Be aware that you are doing this when you write detailed descriptions. You are literally circling Chekov's gun on the mantle piece with red texter and tossing glitter over it. A detailed description is almost a promise to the reader.
And lastly rhythm.
Sentences, paragraphs, and chapters have a rhythm. I'll talk in one of my later posts about macro level pacing, but let's concentrate on the sentence level rhythm for the moment.
Narrative draws the inner eye of the reader. As you add detail, you're making the reader focus on what you're describing, making them slow down before you move them onto the next point. If you're descriptions are sparse of detail, the reader is going to move from one thing to the next in quick succession: bang, bang, bang. Detail, or lack of it, is something you can manipulate in a sentence to slow down or speed up the rhythm of a paragraph.
I hope that gives you some insight you haven't had before. Enjoy all,
Sian
Showing posts with label Characters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Characters. Show all posts
Thursday, January 09, 2014
Monday, December 30, 2013
Discovery Writing (or Pantsing) World Building - How it Informs your Plot and your Characters
Otherwise known to me as gardening. Bizarre gardening, but gardening none-the-less.
Imagine, for a moment, a plot of land. Nothing growing, nothing there but fresh, fertile soil. The sort of soil that smells of cows and sweet rotting things.
You pick a particular corner, and you start building a path. As you build this path, you scatter seeds around you, plant trees, roses, place streams and rocks down. But you only really create the garden around the path. You sort of make it up as you go along. The things you just planted inform what you next plant, but if you decide to just go ahead and whack a gum tree in the middle of a bunch of roses, no-one will stop you. You decide to maybe plant the roses in a nice circle, framing the gum tree, so it makes sense.
Your path will have offshoots, and you'll set up the garden around those offshoots, and then come back to the main path. When you finally finish the path, you'll look back, adjust some things, plant some things in the gaps that are visible from the main path.
Your first visitor comes along, and you take them through the path, down all the little offshoots. You notice they're getting tired about halfway through, so you resolve not to take your next visitor down the little offshoots. The plants are still there. You can still point them out to the next visitor if they want to know.
And maybe some of the other visitors ask about the bits beyond the garden they can see. So you think about it, look what else you've done, then plant some more stuff.
This is essentially what my world building looks like. The path is my story and plot, the offshoots are little plot bunnies I chase that don't really come to fruition, and the friends I'm showing through are my alpha and beta readers. I make up the world that informs the plot first, then fill in the rest later. I make it make sense by looking at what else I've created, and fitting new information into that. If something seems totally out of left field, but I love it, I'll just go and make the world building around it fit.
Notice the offshoots. There are many many times when I'm writing something and it makes no sense at all on the read through. So I change it, or get rid of it, or rebuild my plot. But that offshoot had value because I learnt more about my world and my characters while writing it.
Another important thing to realise is that your characters reflect their world. When your character does something, think about why they do it, and that might give you your next clue for what to plant next. If you get stuck, take a step back and look at where you've come from. Maybe build a stream in the middle of everything so when you show people around this garden of yours, they have to jump over it. World building can cause complications for your characters just as much as anything.
And if something random pops up, justify it. Sometimes you'll just be coming up with bullshit. And sometimes it will present new character motivations, political manoeuvres, and plot points. Discovery writing is literally about that - making shit up and seeing if it works. If it doesn't work, then that's fine - you've learnt something about the story you're writing, trust me. You've learnt something about your characters, about how they react to the other people and places around them.
The trick in pantsing and discovery writing isn't finding a plot. It's recognising what is plot, and what isn't. It's figuring out which part of the garden you've created to show to people, and which part to keep in your own files, for your amusement and joy. Because while pantsing can be frustrating, you can't get closer to that joy of creation, because you're literally creating everything, all at once.
Happy Holidays All,
Sian
Imagine, for a moment, a plot of land. Nothing growing, nothing there but fresh, fertile soil. The sort of soil that smells of cows and sweet rotting things.
You pick a particular corner, and you start building a path. As you build this path, you scatter seeds around you, plant trees, roses, place streams and rocks down. But you only really create the garden around the path. You sort of make it up as you go along. The things you just planted inform what you next plant, but if you decide to just go ahead and whack a gum tree in the middle of a bunch of roses, no-one will stop you. You decide to maybe plant the roses in a nice circle, framing the gum tree, so it makes sense.
Your path will have offshoots, and you'll set up the garden around those offshoots, and then come back to the main path. When you finally finish the path, you'll look back, adjust some things, plant some things in the gaps that are visible from the main path.
Your first visitor comes along, and you take them through the path, down all the little offshoots. You notice they're getting tired about halfway through, so you resolve not to take your next visitor down the little offshoots. The plants are still there. You can still point them out to the next visitor if they want to know.
And maybe some of the other visitors ask about the bits beyond the garden they can see. So you think about it, look what else you've done, then plant some more stuff.
This is essentially what my world building looks like. The path is my story and plot, the offshoots are little plot bunnies I chase that don't really come to fruition, and the friends I'm showing through are my alpha and beta readers. I make up the world that informs the plot first, then fill in the rest later. I make it make sense by looking at what else I've created, and fitting new information into that. If something seems totally out of left field, but I love it, I'll just go and make the world building around it fit.
Notice the offshoots. There are many many times when I'm writing something and it makes no sense at all on the read through. So I change it, or get rid of it, or rebuild my plot. But that offshoot had value because I learnt more about my world and my characters while writing it.
Another important thing to realise is that your characters reflect their world. When your character does something, think about why they do it, and that might give you your next clue for what to plant next. If you get stuck, take a step back and look at where you've come from. Maybe build a stream in the middle of everything so when you show people around this garden of yours, they have to jump over it. World building can cause complications for your characters just as much as anything.
And if something random pops up, justify it. Sometimes you'll just be coming up with bullshit. And sometimes it will present new character motivations, political manoeuvres, and plot points. Discovery writing is literally about that - making shit up and seeing if it works. If it doesn't work, then that's fine - you've learnt something about the story you're writing, trust me. You've learnt something about your characters, about how they react to the other people and places around them.
The trick in pantsing and discovery writing isn't finding a plot. It's recognising what is plot, and what isn't. It's figuring out which part of the garden you've created to show to people, and which part to keep in your own files, for your amusement and joy. Because while pantsing can be frustrating, you can't get closer to that joy of creation, because you're literally creating everything, all at once.
Happy Holidays All,
Sian
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Making Narration and Detail Matter Through Character
Characters. I've come to the conclusion that they are one of the most important things within a book. They define the plot, the emotional connection that a reader has to the book, and the tension.
Without the characters, there is no plot, even if your characters are mearly vechials of said plot. But more importantly then that, and something I'm only just realising: Your characters are your desciption.
How do you make description matter? Well, you narrate through your character, and make it matter to them. If you want to get across the fact that your female MC is a buxom beauty, you don't say: She had an hourglass silhouette with perfect lips, blond hair and green eyes. That is a list of physical characteristics.
But if you describe the female MC through one of the other characters, it makes those details matter to the reader. Because while you're still describing physical characteristics and telling us about them, you're also showing the effect that these characteristics has on your viewpoint character. In essence, telling by showing.
For example : Christy reminded her of a whore sometimes - puffed up lips, dyed platinum hair and a chest that was too large to actually be real. But every now and then, there was a flash of something in her probably fake green eyes that made Sara hunt her down every time she wanted information.
Now, you're still getting across exactly the same details. But these details are now important - they effect the standing of Christy in Sara's eyes, and they influence how she acts around her. The have importance to the character, and because character and plot are connected, to the plot.
If Christy had been the bookish type, maybe the contrast between her appearance and the knowledge in her eyes wouldn't have jumped out as Sara quite as much. Maybe she would have gone to someone different.
And thus, you would have a different plot.
Characters determine plot, and plot determines characters. But by telling us things by showing it to us through the reaction of characters, you make the telling a lot more interesting and meaningful
Without the characters, there is no plot, even if your characters are mearly vechials of said plot. But more importantly then that, and something I'm only just realising: Your characters are your desciption.
How do you make description matter? Well, you narrate through your character, and make it matter to them. If you want to get across the fact that your female MC is a buxom beauty, you don't say: She had an hourglass silhouette with perfect lips, blond hair and green eyes. That is a list of physical characteristics.
But if you describe the female MC through one of the other characters, it makes those details matter to the reader. Because while you're still describing physical characteristics and telling us about them, you're also showing the effect that these characteristics has on your viewpoint character. In essence, telling by showing.
For example : Christy reminded her of a whore sometimes - puffed up lips, dyed platinum hair and a chest that was too large to actually be real. But every now and then, there was a flash of something in her probably fake green eyes that made Sara hunt her down every time she wanted information.
Now, you're still getting across exactly the same details. But these details are now important - they effect the standing of Christy in Sara's eyes, and they influence how she acts around her. The have importance to the character, and because character and plot are connected, to the plot.
If Christy had been the bookish type, maybe the contrast between her appearance and the knowledge in her eyes wouldn't have jumped out as Sara quite as much. Maybe she would have gone to someone different.
And thus, you would have a different plot.
Characters determine plot, and plot determines characters. But by telling us things by showing it to us through the reaction of characters, you make the telling a lot more interesting and meaningful
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Telling instead of Showing - Because none of us can read minds
Show, don't tell. Hallowed writing advice, definitely. The whole point of it is to involve your readers. To pick on an clichéd example, writing : "he slammed the phone down" is infinitely better than "he felt angry". By showing, you're inviting your reader to participate in making their own conclusions about the character's emotions
.
But you can go too far. I see this happening in my own work, and when I'm betaing, when a characters thoughts are involved. Some things have to be told. Prose is not a movie script.
For example, if a person is hovering on the edge of entering a building, they may be nervous, anxious, sort of hoping that the person they're going to meet isn't in there, while at the same time knowing that they need to meet this person.
Fear, anxiety - all that can be shown through the bodies reactions. But the moment you start trying to show the thoughts of that character, you can get stuck. A sentence along the lines of "he doubted he was going to get anywhere with Chris's help, even if the fear screeching at the back of his brain told him otherwise" is fine in this situation. You're telling. You're telling that he's afraid, that he doubts he can go further without this.
But you're also inviting the reader into the characters mind. Something you can't do just by showing. If you say something like "he hoped from foot to foot, hesitating at the doorway", that shows that he's scared. It doesn't show us his thoughts on his fear though. I doesn't show us how he's made mentally as a person.
The whole point of showing is to involve the reader, to make them part of the story. But you can only show emotion, not thoughts. And while actions do make a person individual, thoughts make them unique.
It's entirely possible that there could be two people standing at that doorway, both nervous and scared about going in. Both could go in. But one could be formulating a way to go about his objective if this fails, while one other is totally in the moment, and just hoping to hell that this works.
There's a significant difference between inviting the reader into a person's mind, and hitting them over the head with things they could figure out for them selves. But none of us are mind readers, so telling definitely has its place
.
But you can go too far. I see this happening in my own work, and when I'm betaing, when a characters thoughts are involved. Some things have to be told. Prose is not a movie script.
For example, if a person is hovering on the edge of entering a building, they may be nervous, anxious, sort of hoping that the person they're going to meet isn't in there, while at the same time knowing that they need to meet this person.
Fear, anxiety - all that can be shown through the bodies reactions. But the moment you start trying to show the thoughts of that character, you can get stuck. A sentence along the lines of "he doubted he was going to get anywhere with Chris's help, even if the fear screeching at the back of his brain told him otherwise" is fine in this situation. You're telling. You're telling that he's afraid, that he doubts he can go further without this.
But you're also inviting the reader into the characters mind. Something you can't do just by showing. If you say something like "he hoped from foot to foot, hesitating at the doorway", that shows that he's scared. It doesn't show us his thoughts on his fear though. I doesn't show us how he's made mentally as a person.
The whole point of showing is to involve the reader, to make them part of the story. But you can only show emotion, not thoughts. And while actions do make a person individual, thoughts make them unique.
It's entirely possible that there could be two people standing at that doorway, both nervous and scared about going in. Both could go in. But one could be formulating a way to go about his objective if this fails, while one other is totally in the moment, and just hoping to hell that this works.
There's a significant difference between inviting the reader into a person's mind, and hitting them over the head with things they could figure out for them selves. But none of us are mind readers, so telling definitely has its place
Monday, December 19, 2011
Tying your Antagonists Together for Greater Impact
I'm not a fan of planning things out in minute detail. If I do that, by the time I get to the writing, I'm already bored of the story. It's never worked out well for me before.
But I was looking at the basic notes and the first few chapters of my story the other day, and I realised that I didn't really have much in the way of antagonising forces.
As someone once said - the cat sat on the mat is description. The cat sat on the dogs mat is a story.
So if conflict makes a story, then does it follow that there must be an overarching antagonistic force? I'm not necessarily talking a blood and bones individual antagonist here. For example, look at Harry Potter. The main antagonistic character is Voldermort - but he doesn't truly show up until the last chapters of the first two books, and doesn't even make an appearance in the third.
Instead, often what Harry is fighting for is to be accepted. That's all he wanted from his adoptive family, that's all he wants from school and friends. So anyone making him stand out, either by antagonising him, or making him out to be bigger than he is, or forcing him to be a hero, is a driver of that antagonistic force.
Voldermort is part of that. So is Draco, and Snape, and Ron's jealousy. Individual antagonistic events, but they're all connected by this. As the books go on, Harry's motivations change - revenge, anger, love. While there may be many antagonists, they all contribute to the antagonistic force that he is pushing against.
So without an overarching antagonistic force to push against and worry at my main character, I had antagonists, but they were all over the place, and thus, they didn't have much of an impact on my character. They may have been hard for him to defeat, but they didn't force him to change, or weigh him down mentally.
I finally figured out that it was because they had no connection to each other. These events were just the shit he had to get through on a weekly basis. Difficult, yes. Memorable, no.
So I had to think about what my character wanted - to become a doctor and serve his community. Great. But why did he want that?
He wanted that because his brother had bled to death in his arms and he was sick of the fate that was granted to those in his community. So what did he want? He wanted to cheat fate.
And then, suddenly, all my antagonistic forces tied themselves together. Still the same events and people, but if they reminded my MC of the fate he was trying to avoid. They hammered home the message that he would never get out, that his fate would follow him everywhere, stop him from getting his love interest, stop him from achieving his freedom from his fate. As such, these events had a much greater impact.
As individual events, they made things difficult for him. But unless one totally defeated him (in which case it'd be the end of the book), they weren't going to effect much. They were basically scenery. Interesting scenery, but scenery none-the-less.
Tied together, they not only made things hard for the MC, but they shaped the story and how it evolved.
So if you don't have one individual making things hard for your MC, figure out what your MC wants, not just on the surface, but really wants. Your overarching antagonistic force will be that which is in conflict with that foundational need. If you can then adjust all the forces that work against the MC so they reflect, in some small part, this overarching antagonistic force, your conflict will have a much greater impact on the reader. It'll be like he's being constantly hammered by something that doesn't want him to succeed, rather than just having hammers thrown at him.
There is a difference - one is personal, the other is just part of the landscape. And while both are interesting, the personal always has a better effect.
Happy Writing,
Sian
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Second Draft Miracle
There's something wonderful about being able to write when you know exactly what's going to happen. It allows you to think more about what you're writing now, rather than "where the heck do I go with this next?"
Some would argue that is what plans are for. But for me, I do a first draft which is mostly worry and "good god, what have I done". Then I get to the end, and I rather pleasantly know my characters, and have a plot.
But there's something strange about second drafts. Sometimes, there are big problems in the first draft that have to be corrected. Logically speaking, you don't know if your corrections are going to work - you just know that they're fixing the current problem. How then, is it that the corrections work themselves out? How can removing an entire scene, which would have effected the MC in a variety of ways, and driven the plot in a variety of ways, not actually change the book so much that you end up with another first draft?
This happened to me recently - I realised that I had a scene I didn't need. I cut the scene, wrote some other stuff. Not once was there any guarantee that the other stuff would bring me directly back into the plot line, but it managed to. I've been a little perplexed as to how it worked out so well.
I think it comes from my changing of my MC's main motivation.
At the end of the first draft, I knew my MC and her motivation didn't fit. Her motivation didn't drive her to do what she was doing by the end of the book. So I went and changed it, to fit her actions at the end of the book.
This new motivation not only drives her to those actions in the climax, but keeps her on task for the rest of the plot line. There is no other way she can go, given her circumstances, who she is as a person, and her motivation.
Neat, huh? I was quite pleased with this revelation, and quite heartbroken by the fact it means that I've got to go in search of motivation in another WIP. But this revelation provides a tool for fixing things, and that is always useful.
So when you know how things are going to turn out, and you know who your characters are, make sure their motivations are going to drive them towards the appropriate actions. If they are of a certain character, that character, paired with the right motivation, will keep them on track.
Enjoy creating~
Sian
Some would argue that is what plans are for. But for me, I do a first draft which is mostly worry and "good god, what have I done". Then I get to the end, and I rather pleasantly know my characters, and have a plot.
But there's something strange about second drafts. Sometimes, there are big problems in the first draft that have to be corrected. Logically speaking, you don't know if your corrections are going to work - you just know that they're fixing the current problem. How then, is it that the corrections work themselves out? How can removing an entire scene, which would have effected the MC in a variety of ways, and driven the plot in a variety of ways, not actually change the book so much that you end up with another first draft?
This happened to me recently - I realised that I had a scene I didn't need. I cut the scene, wrote some other stuff. Not once was there any guarantee that the other stuff would bring me directly back into the plot line, but it managed to. I've been a little perplexed as to how it worked out so well.
I think it comes from my changing of my MC's main motivation.
At the end of the first draft, I knew my MC and her motivation didn't fit. Her motivation didn't drive her to do what she was doing by the end of the book. So I went and changed it, to fit her actions at the end of the book.
This new motivation not only drives her to those actions in the climax, but keeps her on task for the rest of the plot line. There is no other way she can go, given her circumstances, who she is as a person, and her motivation.
Neat, huh? I was quite pleased with this revelation, and quite heartbroken by the fact it means that I've got to go in search of motivation in another WIP. But this revelation provides a tool for fixing things, and that is always useful.
So when you know how things are going to turn out, and you know who your characters are, make sure their motivations are going to drive them towards the appropriate actions. If they are of a certain character, that character, paired with the right motivation, will keep them on track.
Enjoy creating~
Sian
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Change of Motivation
Now, this is a rather recurrent problem with me. I tend to think of the action of my MC first, and then their motivation. Side characters, other main characters - generally fine. But the MC is the one I start off with, and it is quite literally impossible for me to know them before I start writing them into a situation, because I don't do a heap of planning when I first start out.
The question is, what do you do, after powering through the first draft to the end, after realising your characters motivation is flimsy? How do you even recognise it as flimsy in the first place? (I had a lot of trouble with this one).
It all boils down to one very simple point. If you start the first draft without a plan, or without background information on you characters, you're going to get a lot of contradictory traits and motivation within your characters to start off with. Somewhere around the 1/4 mark, you'll figure you're main character out, and foget about that bothersome motivation that started the story off.
But it's still there, waiting for you when you get back. So how to fix it?
Just to clarify, you should not really be asking yourself what motivates your characters halfway through the book. If you still don't know them by then, you should really stop and think about what sort of people they are, what sort of history they have. but otherwise, there is normally one of a few things (or more) wrong with your character's motivation:
The motivation doesn't fit the character. It fits the plot, but not the character that you have by the end of the book.
There is no motivation, the character just does what the story requires
In both cases, it is a matter of deciding what you wish to change. It's your story, you can change everything in it. So do you change the motivation? Do you change the character so they fit the motivation? Or do you change the plot, so that the character that you have discovered by the end of your first draft now dictates a new story?
All of these can be done. Changing motivation is easier than changing an entire storyline, or changing a character to fit that motivation. For example, say Jane wants to get into a big business because she wants to get rich. By the time you get to the end of the book, you realise Jane doesn't care about money - she cares about her brother's health, and she needs to be in this business, because they're creating a drug that will help her brother with his illness. Now, you can go back, and change the motivation, make Jane want to get in to reassure herself about the drug from the start. Or you can make it so that she's originally interested in the money, but subconsciously, and gradually conscientiously, she becomes concerned about the medicine that her brother needs. That's changing the character so it fits both the motivation at the start, or the character they become. Or you can give up on the idea of the business entirely, and have this character, who you now know intimately, do something else to guarantee her brothers health.
In the end, the question is what do you like most about your first draft, and which solution is most believable? The character at the end, the new motivation you can come up with, or the old motivation. It all comes down to both personal taste, and believability.
I find it hard to believe that Jane would enter the company purely to check up on her brother's new experimental medicine. But join the company because she needs and wants money, and then slowly get drawn towards information on the drug? that I could believe.
Enjoy creating~
Sian
The question is, what do you do, after powering through the first draft to the end, after realising your characters motivation is flimsy? How do you even recognise it as flimsy in the first place? (I had a lot of trouble with this one).
It all boils down to one very simple point. If you start the first draft without a plan, or without background information on you characters, you're going to get a lot of contradictory traits and motivation within your characters to start off with. Somewhere around the 1/4 mark, you'll figure you're main character out, and foget about that bothersome motivation that started the story off.
But it's still there, waiting for you when you get back. So how to fix it?
Just to clarify, you should not really be asking yourself what motivates your characters halfway through the book. If you still don't know them by then, you should really stop and think about what sort of people they are, what sort of history they have. but otherwise, there is normally one of a few things (or more) wrong with your character's motivation:
The motivation doesn't fit the character. It fits the plot, but not the character that you have by the end of the book.
There is no motivation, the character just does what the story requires
In both cases, it is a matter of deciding what you wish to change. It's your story, you can change everything in it. So do you change the motivation? Do you change the character so they fit the motivation? Or do you change the plot, so that the character that you have discovered by the end of your first draft now dictates a new story?
All of these can be done. Changing motivation is easier than changing an entire storyline, or changing a character to fit that motivation. For example, say Jane wants to get into a big business because she wants to get rich. By the time you get to the end of the book, you realise Jane doesn't care about money - she cares about her brother's health, and she needs to be in this business, because they're creating a drug that will help her brother with his illness. Now, you can go back, and change the motivation, make Jane want to get in to reassure herself about the drug from the start. Or you can make it so that she's originally interested in the money, but subconsciously, and gradually conscientiously, she becomes concerned about the medicine that her brother needs. That's changing the character so it fits both the motivation at the start, or the character they become. Or you can give up on the idea of the business entirely, and have this character, who you now know intimately, do something else to guarantee her brothers health.
In the end, the question is what do you like most about your first draft, and which solution is most believable? The character at the end, the new motivation you can come up with, or the old motivation. It all comes down to both personal taste, and believability.
I find it hard to believe that Jane would enter the company purely to check up on her brother's new experimental medicine. But join the company because she needs and wants money, and then slowly get drawn towards information on the drug? that I could believe.
Enjoy creating~
Sian
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Coming Back
You may have noticed the odd quiet hanging around here of late. That is mainly due to the fact that, well, I've been writing a first draft, and it does tend to rather consume one's life.
So. I have mentioned my writing process before, but here's something else that starting a new project taught me. I may be getting just a little bit better.
Why? Well, this time round, there was a certain level of detachment and experience. I knew when I did things that were wrong, I knew when I had to go back and fix things. But I knew that as I wrote it, which has never happened for me before. It's always been the process of getting incredibly attached to something, then not being able to see it's flaws until a month afterwards.
This time round, I expected it's flaws. I still have a little voice inside my head informing me that "this is crap, this is crap, this is crap". I have ignored it thus far, and will continue to do so. But it's there, which means I'm on the look out for mistakes. I'm making notes in my head as I go, I'm still loving the story, but looking at it with a much clearer perspective then before.
Frankly speaking, I'm gearing myself for the next haul. The first draft took me 20 days to write, and it's not entire crap. this is always a good start. Over the next two days, I go through, make notes on character, plot, motivation, sub-plots - pull it apart and and analyse it, as it were.
Then we start on the second draft. And by the end of that, I should have something that's not embarrassing. Still needs a lot of work, but you get the idea.
So yes. I'm back. :) It feels wonderful, a bit like work sometimes, but satisfying work.
Enjoy creating~
Sian
So. I have mentioned my writing process before, but here's something else that starting a new project taught me. I may be getting just a little bit better.
Why? Well, this time round, there was a certain level of detachment and experience. I knew when I did things that were wrong, I knew when I had to go back and fix things. But I knew that as I wrote it, which has never happened for me before. It's always been the process of getting incredibly attached to something, then not being able to see it's flaws until a month afterwards.
This time round, I expected it's flaws. I still have a little voice inside my head informing me that "this is crap, this is crap, this is crap". I have ignored it thus far, and will continue to do so. But it's there, which means I'm on the look out for mistakes. I'm making notes in my head as I go, I'm still loving the story, but looking at it with a much clearer perspective then before.
Frankly speaking, I'm gearing myself for the next haul. The first draft took me 20 days to write, and it's not entire crap. this is always a good start. Over the next two days, I go through, make notes on character, plot, motivation, sub-plots - pull it apart and and analyse it, as it were.
Then we start on the second draft. And by the end of that, I should have something that's not embarrassing. Still needs a lot of work, but you get the idea.
So yes. I'm back. :) It feels wonderful, a bit like work sometimes, but satisfying work.
Enjoy creating~
Sian
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
The Effect of POV on Detail in Description and Narration
It's funny, really. When I first sat down to write a manuscript, I didn't realise the process I was entering in to. I mean, I was 13? What 13 year old realises all the effort, the multiple drafts, the world building....
It was a wonderful, innocent time.
Regardless, I'm writing a new peice again, and it's the same as it was the first time. I feel like I'm dancing on the edge of a cliff, making up new bits of the land as I go.
But it's getting easier. The characters, plot and world are gradually coming to me. It's good. And because I know that there's a long process in front of me, I'm thinking about the next step. Which is the addition of detail.
But where do details come from? I think this has a lot to do with POV, myself. Each character is going to notice something different. When you're writing in first person, you can only describe what the characters see and what the characters think about them. So when you're narrating from the POV of a character who is used to the world you're in, you can't explain things that they already know about.
This presents many problems, which I think I'll talk about later (a post of first person will be forthcoming, me thinks :) ) But I think that it's interesting that you have something similar going on in third person limited. You can explain slightly more outside of the characters head, but I think the third person limited works best when you think about the world of the story from inside the characters head and embellish it with what they notice.
So what's the different when it comes to detail? Well, IMHO, it is that in third person limited the narrator can inject. They can tell you things about the world and story that the character couldn't. This can become overused and badly done, but it can also be done well. When it is, it lends itself to both easy description (you can explain things that need to be explained that the narrator wouldn't explain) and you can make your writing come alive (as in you can describe things in a way unique to the MC.) The best of both worlds. :)
Third person omniscient, however, is an entirely different kettle of fish. You can dive into characters heads, describe what they're seeing, describe things in their POV... but the way things are explained, exposed and described is in a different voice entirely. The voice of the narrator, the teller that sees all drives the story and the descriptions.
I experimented with this in a short, and it was amazing. I still had to think about how the characters would describe things, but... it was me describing it. I didn't have to immerse myself for every single word (would they use but, or would they say however?) in the characters minds, it wasn't as exhausting.
Because that's what POV writing can be. Exhausting. Utterly so. I once started a story (Varrick, actually, for those who have been following along) and it was told from the perspective of a forty year old man who had seen way too much and had way too much death on his hands. I remember coming out of a chapter and falling asleep for the next two hours, irrespective of the coffee consumed before hand. It was draining in a way I never thought a book could be.
I think it warrants thought before you start. How intense it this POV? Is it going to be able to tell the story I want it to tell? Am I ready for the investment that 1st person requires?
Anyway, I'm off to get ready for work. It's going to be another late night - I have at least 5k to write, and now that I've been called in for work, it's going to be interesting trying to fit it in.
Enjoy creating~
Sian
It was a wonderful, innocent time.
Regardless, I'm writing a new peice again, and it's the same as it was the first time. I feel like I'm dancing on the edge of a cliff, making up new bits of the land as I go.
But it's getting easier. The characters, plot and world are gradually coming to me. It's good. And because I know that there's a long process in front of me, I'm thinking about the next step. Which is the addition of detail.
But where do details come from? I think this has a lot to do with POV, myself. Each character is going to notice something different. When you're writing in first person, you can only describe what the characters see and what the characters think about them. So when you're narrating from the POV of a character who is used to the world you're in, you can't explain things that they already know about.
This presents many problems, which I think I'll talk about later (a post of first person will be forthcoming, me thinks :) ) But I think that it's interesting that you have something similar going on in third person limited. You can explain slightly more outside of the characters head, but I think the third person limited works best when you think about the world of the story from inside the characters head and embellish it with what they notice.
So what's the different when it comes to detail? Well, IMHO, it is that in third person limited the narrator can inject. They can tell you things about the world and story that the character couldn't. This can become overused and badly done, but it can also be done well. When it is, it lends itself to both easy description (you can explain things that need to be explained that the narrator wouldn't explain) and you can make your writing come alive (as in you can describe things in a way unique to the MC.) The best of both worlds. :)
Third person omniscient, however, is an entirely different kettle of fish. You can dive into characters heads, describe what they're seeing, describe things in their POV... but the way things are explained, exposed and described is in a different voice entirely. The voice of the narrator, the teller that sees all drives the story and the descriptions.
I experimented with this in a short, and it was amazing. I still had to think about how the characters would describe things, but... it was me describing it. I didn't have to immerse myself for every single word (would they use but, or would they say however?) in the characters minds, it wasn't as exhausting.
Because that's what POV writing can be. Exhausting. Utterly so. I once started a story (Varrick, actually, for those who have been following along) and it was told from the perspective of a forty year old man who had seen way too much and had way too much death on his hands. I remember coming out of a chapter and falling asleep for the next two hours, irrespective of the coffee consumed before hand. It was draining in a way I never thought a book could be.
I think it warrants thought before you start. How intense it this POV? Is it going to be able to tell the story I want it to tell? Am I ready for the investment that 1st person requires?
Anyway, I'm off to get ready for work. It's going to be another late night - I have at least 5k to write, and now that I've been called in for work, it's going to be interesting trying to fit it in.
Enjoy creating~
Sian
Monday, October 25, 2010
Characters - Nothing Without Decisions
Okay. You have an idea. You've either done a plan, or you haven't. Each to their own.
What next?
Now, this depends on what type of writer you are. In my limited experience, those that prefer discovery writing will pick up a pen, and start. Maybe not on their book. Maybe they will. Planners won't start yet. Or if they do, it will be character profiles.
But whatever type of writer you are, eventually you're going to come across your characters. You can't have a story without them. It's impossible. Maybe they're not human. Maybe their inanimate dining chairs that want to do ballet. But you will need something.
Of course, if you wish to experiment, be my guest. But generally speaking, a story needs characters.
Some writers will just start. I would recommend that if you're going to do this, start with a character doing something that forces him to react and make a choice. It will tell you, as a writer, about your character. It will give that character a distinct voice from others, as those others make different decisions.
In the end, your characters will be the decisions they make. That's it in a nutshell. If the chair decides to slide along to a ballet class and watch from a corner, this leads to questions. Why isn't he trying it outright? Why did he sneak out of the house? Why hasn't he told his family? If his family disapproves, then why is he still doing it? What inspired his decision?
Every decision has to have a reason behind it, a cause. And every decision will have consequences, will influence the development of your character, change/challange/affirm his moral values. Decision are every thing when it comes to thinking about characters.
After that, everything else is window dressing. What movies they like, what they read, what sports they play - if it matters to the decisions they make, then it is important information. Otherwise, it goes back to being window dressing. Sometimes window dressing becomes important information. The chair likes soccer, he makes a decision to go watch a soccer match, and finds another chair there who wants to do ballet.
Window dressing also differentiates the characters for the reader before the characters start making decisions. While decisions differentiate characters, you can't have major, life changing decisions that show your characters moral compass, religious and cultural identity ever five pages. They will do other things. These other things become important in forging a connection between character and reader.
If you don't start by diving in, you can start with character profiles. You can do a mock interview with your characters. You can chart their entire life history up to this point if that makes you comfortable. If you do plan out who they are before you write, make sure the character fits the type of story you wish to tell. Characters must have motivation for what they're doing - otherwise they become cardboard cutouts. And not many people wish to read about cardboard cutouts.
If you don't plan, my advice would be to start with conflict. It doesn't have to be explosions on the page, it just has to be something that shows us about your character. This start might not nessercarily be part of your book by the time you're finished. some writers start their books and discover their characters as the plot unfolds. There's nothing wrong with that (just be aware there will be editing later). Some writers have to know what their characters will have for breakfast before they can even start page one.
But above all, make your characters memorable. Don't make them perfect (more on this later). Don't make them evil without making them interesting. But make them memorable. I personally will put up with a plot full of holes, as long as I like the characters.
Enjoy creating,
Sian~
What next?
Now, this depends on what type of writer you are. In my limited experience, those that prefer discovery writing will pick up a pen, and start. Maybe not on their book. Maybe they will. Planners won't start yet. Or if they do, it will be character profiles.
But whatever type of writer you are, eventually you're going to come across your characters. You can't have a story without them. It's impossible. Maybe they're not human. Maybe their inanimate dining chairs that want to do ballet. But you will need something.
Of course, if you wish to experiment, be my guest. But generally speaking, a story needs characters.
Some writers will just start. I would recommend that if you're going to do this, start with a character doing something that forces him to react and make a choice. It will tell you, as a writer, about your character. It will give that character a distinct voice from others, as those others make different decisions.
In the end, your characters will be the decisions they make. That's it in a nutshell. If the chair decides to slide along to a ballet class and watch from a corner, this leads to questions. Why isn't he trying it outright? Why did he sneak out of the house? Why hasn't he told his family? If his family disapproves, then why is he still doing it? What inspired his decision?
Every decision has to have a reason behind it, a cause. And every decision will have consequences, will influence the development of your character, change/challange/affirm his moral values. Decision are every thing when it comes to thinking about characters.
After that, everything else is window dressing. What movies they like, what they read, what sports they play - if it matters to the decisions they make, then it is important information. Otherwise, it goes back to being window dressing. Sometimes window dressing becomes important information. The chair likes soccer, he makes a decision to go watch a soccer match, and finds another chair there who wants to do ballet.
Window dressing also differentiates the characters for the reader before the characters start making decisions. While decisions differentiate characters, you can't have major, life changing decisions that show your characters moral compass, religious and cultural identity ever five pages. They will do other things. These other things become important in forging a connection between character and reader.
If you don't start by diving in, you can start with character profiles. You can do a mock interview with your characters. You can chart their entire life history up to this point if that makes you comfortable. If you do plan out who they are before you write, make sure the character fits the type of story you wish to tell. Characters must have motivation for what they're doing - otherwise they become cardboard cutouts. And not many people wish to read about cardboard cutouts.
If you don't plan, my advice would be to start with conflict. It doesn't have to be explosions on the page, it just has to be something that shows us about your character. This start might not nessercarily be part of your book by the time you're finished. some writers start their books and discover their characters as the plot unfolds. There's nothing wrong with that (just be aware there will be editing later). Some writers have to know what their characters will have for breakfast before they can even start page one.
But above all, make your characters memorable. Don't make them perfect (more on this later). Don't make them evil without making them interesting. But make them memorable. I personally will put up with a plot full of holes, as long as I like the characters.
Enjoy creating,
Sian~
Friday, October 22, 2010
Character Profile : Dylan Amser
This is the protagonist of my new Nanowrimo novel: Dylan Amser. This was free-written, with no thought as to plot or anything else, just so I can get his voice in my head. Bits of it may make their way into the book, or they may not.
Here it is:
Here it is:
It starts with the watch. Always, the watch. Dylan has long come to realise that the watch means change, means doom, spells wonder and amazement.
The watch makes his father the most powerful man in the world. But once a year, it also makes him the most vulnerable. Dylan cannot understand why he does this to himself – each year, back to the same place. A little church in Wales. A trip back to the time that my mother lover the best – the end of the Norman period, the start of the Tudors. Dylan remembers his mother standing, half torn between revulsion and wonders, on the edge of the battlefield. He remembers clutching her skirt, peering around at the blood and misery. He remembers the three of them travelling to the small church, his father and mother disappearing into one of the side rooms. This happened only ever after they thought Dylan asleep, but still, he heard them, whispering to each other, snuggled together in the choir seats, talking about the events that were taking place, the societies that were being made.
Dylan never had any interest in societies, or how they were made. He didn’t see the point, didn’t recognise the significance. Now, he recognises it, but he’s not in awe of it. He’s seen Significant Points so many times that he now recognises them for what they are – a mere blip in what he assumes is a giant plan. There are no reversals, no harkening back – history and future is just a giant circle, with humans either trying to cling to the animals they originally were, or trying to find the spark that god made them to make them human.
It is the in-between bits that Dylan finds the most interesting – the relationships and events that are achingly important to those that have them, but have no effect on the world around. It’s why he likes soccer – a game filled with what feels to be significant moments, but is really just colour and flavour to the great scheme and no more.
When he told his father this, his father offered to take him back to the soccer games that spiked revolt in Ireland. Dylan remembers shouting no. It was the only time he ever really wished he had a door. Soon after that, he learnt how to deal without one.
Dylan has never had a proper home. He goes to school, and when that is finished he goes travelling with his father for half the night. He spends time in the great cities, on the outskirts of great laboratories, on the edge of the aftermath of great battles. Then he falls to sleep on his father’s lap.
Once a year, on the day his mother died, they go to the place where they scattered her ashes – that one church where his parents stayed up late murmuring to each other. Every time, Dylan’s father leaves him at that place in the present, and travels by himself, with the watch, to the age where they scattered her ashes. He comes back on the strike of six, drunk and reaching for his son. Dylan sleeps with him on those nights, his twelve year old body curled up beside his father’s; his heart-beat loud in his ears.
His father has never been violent, or done anything else when he is drunk. But he clutches that book to his chest. That book is unmovable – if you write something in it, the words will never change. Ever. If you change the timeline, you can still read about the previous timeline in that book, no matter how many times you change history. Dylan has never been able to read the book. He knows only that on the first page, written many times is one sentence.
I have a son. This must never change.
Some part of Dylan knows that his father does not stop his mother’s death, because doing so results in Dylan not existing. He does not know why. But he knows that every year, on that day, his father sits staring at the first page. And every year, he makes the decision not to wipe Dylan from existence.
On Heroines
I've been thinking about his quite a bit lately. What makes a good character? The reason I've been thinking on has to do with my own leading lady, Kira Hilta. Kira is withdrawn, she's lived most of her seventeen years out with only three people to deal with, (her mother, her grandfather, and her mother's fiancée.) She doesn't like outside interference. She's kind once you stop being an "outsider" to her. She's observant, smart, but she makes silly decisions sometimes and she is sometimes naive despite what her life's been like. At the same time, she's manipulative - once she decides on something, she will go to extraordinary lengths to do that thing. If you anger her enough, break the wall that she puts up around herself with violence, you will find that she has no moral line in her response.
I've had different responses to Kira. Some have liked her. I love her (for me, anyone who combines naivety with retribution is interesting.) Some haven't warmed to her at all.
I finally figured out the reason why. I don't show any of her good attributes until about a third of the way through the book. It's still all there, but she never gets a chance to show any of it.
But regardless, all this got me to thinking about what I like in a heroine. I'm a fan of complicated and morally ambiguous heroines, sure. Katniss, Lireal (garth Nix if you're wondering), Elspeth (Obwernyton by Isobelle Carmody). These characters have their complications, and their faults.
But the characters I love the most are those I wish I could be. Anything written by Tamora Pierce has these sort of characters. Powerful, smart, loved women who will flatten anything that comes in their path.
The thing that makes these books interesting is not the "will they/won't they" succeed, it's in watching how they do it. There is never any doubt in my mind on whether they have the competence to overcome their obstacles. Whether they can do it with everything they hold and love intact in another matter.
As always, unless you're trying to make a point, balance is key. But it makes me wonder if the rounded character does require big faults. Or just small ones.
Sian~
I've had different responses to Kira. Some have liked her. I love her (for me, anyone who combines naivety with retribution is interesting.) Some haven't warmed to her at all.
I finally figured out the reason why. I don't show any of her good attributes until about a third of the way through the book. It's still all there, but she never gets a chance to show any of it.
But regardless, all this got me to thinking about what I like in a heroine. I'm a fan of complicated and morally ambiguous heroines, sure. Katniss, Lireal (garth Nix if you're wondering), Elspeth (Obwernyton by Isobelle Carmody). These characters have their complications, and their faults.
But the characters I love the most are those I wish I could be. Anything written by Tamora Pierce has these sort of characters. Powerful, smart, loved women who will flatten anything that comes in their path.
The thing that makes these books interesting is not the "will they/won't they" succeed, it's in watching how they do it. There is never any doubt in my mind on whether they have the competence to overcome their obstacles. Whether they can do it with everything they hold and love intact in another matter.
As always, unless you're trying to make a point, balance is key. But it makes me wonder if the rounded character does require big faults. Or just small ones.
Sian~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)