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
Thursday, January 19, 2012
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
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Conveying you world in flashes of detail
For me, the first major issue I come across is figuring out what the hell is going on in my story. I do plan the plot out before-hand, because it saves me from having to do four first drafts, but my planning is more like:
Needs to establish relationship and find out about Otherkind.
So there's no character notes, no description, nothing. I know where the plot is going, but not much else. For me, the first draft if figuring out secondary characters, scenery, dialogue, emotions - the tendons and muscles that go on the bones of plot.
As the story progresses, it gets easier, because I'm using the same characters, or similar scenerary, so I don't have to go and invent everything. I know what everything looks like, and how everyone acts.
Inevitably I end up writing an awful lot of drivel, just so I can figure out what the hell is going on.
And the second draft, for me, is condensing all this knowledge down into moments and flashes.
The human brain is a remarkable thing. Perhaps you've see the chain email or text, where all the letters are rearranged except the first and last letters of each word. You can still read the paragraph - your mind fills in the blanks.
To me, a writers job is to give that first and last letter to the readers. You need to give the reader flashes and moments that their brain can take and extend. This may seem like it's less work for you, but it's not. Because when you write half a page of description, you're conveying facts. And people can't make up facts, so you have to cover them all.
When you describe in flashes, you're conveying mood and emotion. That mood is tacked onto a couple of facts, and the reader is able to fill that description with all the images they have associated with that mood.
One example I have was when I was describing the neighbourhood that my main character grew up in. I described a train ride through the city, the slums, the houses, the way the roads went. That was fine when I was writing it for me.
The second time round, I described the train station - a hunk of concrete sitting in the middle of the rubble of last year's houses. I described that the dirt-track roads, with the occasional brick lain down - testament to a fools attempt to civilise the area. I described the rotting carcass of a dog, which underneath the preparation area for a street vendor who sold street food.
These are details that show you things. They show you the area is run down, hobbled together, a place that has lost a great deal of it's hope. A place where people don't care about food poisoning, because they're probably going to die of starvation in a week anyway.
Those descriptions took up a paragraph when clumped together. But it took time to think them up. I had to sit down and write a list of what I needed to convey about this place to my readers. Facts, mood and emotion had to be conveyed in a couple of details.
It takes time, but it's well worth it. So when you've written down the facts of your world, contemporary or otherwise, go back and look for the mood and emotion. Look for the facts you need to convey. Combining them in details gives the reader flashes of your world that they can extend. This makes for readers involved in creating your world - and there's nothing better than that level of involvement.
Needs to establish relationship and find out about Otherkind.
So there's no character notes, no description, nothing. I know where the plot is going, but not much else. For me, the first draft if figuring out secondary characters, scenery, dialogue, emotions - the tendons and muscles that go on the bones of plot.
As the story progresses, it gets easier, because I'm using the same characters, or similar scenerary, so I don't have to go and invent everything. I know what everything looks like, and how everyone acts.
Inevitably I end up writing an awful lot of drivel, just so I can figure out what the hell is going on.
And the second draft, for me, is condensing all this knowledge down into moments and flashes.
The human brain is a remarkable thing. Perhaps you've see the chain email or text, where all the letters are rearranged except the first and last letters of each word. You can still read the paragraph - your mind fills in the blanks.
To me, a writers job is to give that first and last letter to the readers. You need to give the reader flashes and moments that their brain can take and extend. This may seem like it's less work for you, but it's not. Because when you write half a page of description, you're conveying facts. And people can't make up facts, so you have to cover them all.
When you describe in flashes, you're conveying mood and emotion. That mood is tacked onto a couple of facts, and the reader is able to fill that description with all the images they have associated with that mood.
One example I have was when I was describing the neighbourhood that my main character grew up in. I described a train ride through the city, the slums, the houses, the way the roads went. That was fine when I was writing it for me.
The second time round, I described the train station - a hunk of concrete sitting in the middle of the rubble of last year's houses. I described that the dirt-track roads, with the occasional brick lain down - testament to a fools attempt to civilise the area. I described the rotting carcass of a dog, which underneath the preparation area for a street vendor who sold street food.
These are details that show you things. They show you the area is run down, hobbled together, a place that has lost a great deal of it's hope. A place where people don't care about food poisoning, because they're probably going to die of starvation in a week anyway.
Those descriptions took up a paragraph when clumped together. But it took time to think them up. I had to sit down and write a list of what I needed to convey about this place to my readers. Facts, mood and emotion had to be conveyed in a couple of details.
It takes time, but it's well worth it. So when you've written down the facts of your world, contemporary or otherwise, go back and look for the mood and emotion. Look for the facts you need to convey. Combining them in details gives the reader flashes of your world that they can extend. This makes for readers involved in creating your world - and there's nothing better than that level of involvement.
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
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Plotting and Hunting Down Research
Or basically, the realisation that I might actually have to do some pre-emptive planning.
Now, me, I'm not a planner. I quite like coming up with characters mid book - it keeps me interested (the books that I have planned out have generally been abysmal failures). But generally, I write things that are set in worlds that I make up. So I don't have to know too much to actually start writing them. And what I do need to know, I can ask professor google as I go along.
A crime book, however, is different. There's red herrings, plot twists, clues, psychological actions... if I don't do some pre-planning before I start, I'll end up with 10 drafts. And I've quite gotten used to the idea of doing under five drafts. I've even started to think I might be able to aim reasonably for three drafts before I send it off to beta readers.
So, I'm actually going to have to plan things out. And given that this story involves the police, fraud crime, and the AFP (Australia's version of the FBI), I actually need to think about more than the plot. Plausibility and accuracy are actually entering into the equation. Previously, it was more a matter of making the world rational, coherent and consistent (which was quite a struggle at times in itself).
But this is based in the real world. Not alternate reality, not fantasy, not science fiction. The only stuff I've written in the real world before have been short literary pieces. And the first story that chooses to poke its head up in our realm is a novel which requires me to know a lot of the in an outs of police work.
Amazing what you can find out from the AFP annual report though :D
If there's silence around here, it'll be because I'm suddenly busy again. I've got editing, research, and now a new beta project :D Middle grade fiction. I really did enjoy betaing it last time, so hopefully it'll be good as it was last time :D
Enjoy all~
Sian
Now, me, I'm not a planner. I quite like coming up with characters mid book - it keeps me interested (the books that I have planned out have generally been abysmal failures). But generally, I write things that are set in worlds that I make up. So I don't have to know too much to actually start writing them. And what I do need to know, I can ask professor google as I go along.
A crime book, however, is different. There's red herrings, plot twists, clues, psychological actions... if I don't do some pre-planning before I start, I'll end up with 10 drafts. And I've quite gotten used to the idea of doing under five drafts. I've even started to think I might be able to aim reasonably for three drafts before I send it off to beta readers.
So, I'm actually going to have to plan things out. And given that this story involves the police, fraud crime, and the AFP (Australia's version of the FBI), I actually need to think about more than the plot. Plausibility and accuracy are actually entering into the equation. Previously, it was more a matter of making the world rational, coherent and consistent (which was quite a struggle at times in itself).
But this is based in the real world. Not alternate reality, not fantasy, not science fiction. The only stuff I've written in the real world before have been short literary pieces. And the first story that chooses to poke its head up in our realm is a novel which requires me to know a lot of the in an outs of police work.
Amazing what you can find out from the AFP annual report though :D
If there's silence around here, it'll be because I'm suddenly busy again. I've got editing, research, and now a new beta project :D Middle grade fiction. I really did enjoy betaing it last time, so hopefully it'll be good as it was last time :D
Enjoy all~
Sian
Thursday, December 30, 2010
How a Query can actually manage not to be the epitome of evil
Yes, it's hard to believe. Queries, for those who don't know, are a small paragraph of no more than 250-300 words, in which you try to tell someone what happens in your story, why it's cool, and how totally awesome you are as a writer.
Unfortunately, you can't just come out and say this (Imagine that - I am a good writer, and this is the best most fantastical book ever). No, instead you have to show them that by weaving a compelling and individual narrative (ie, you can't have just a premise - you have to show what happens in your book, what the stakes are for your character, and give some hint of what they do).
There should be conflict, tension, character, plot, good writing... in about 250 words. Thus, queries have a reputation for being evil. Their primary purpose is to sell your book, or net it some representation from an agent.
But for me, at least, queries have quite a nifty little second use, which is not quite as evil as the first one.
Okay, you've got 250 words. In that sort of space, you can't muck about. A query forces you to get to the very essence of what your story, characters, themes and ideas are about. That's what makes it so bloody hard - most of us don't try and think that way to start off with. Whether you're a planner or a discovery writer, most people will think out their plot, characters and story, but they won't think about the essence of all those things. And most people don't know what the essence of their story is. Well, they have a generic idea. For example, my story The Manda was about shades of grey in people and civilisations - the idea that no-one is right; that there is only perspective, and while a person can be kind in one instance, they can be downright horrible in the next.
But that has been done before. It's a very broad idea of what my story is about. In a query, you need to be specific - you have to figure out the essence of your story, characters, plot ect, and then you have to figure out what makes it individual, fun, terrifying, brilliant.
This takes forever, or at least it does for me. I spent hours on my last query - it didn't take too long to figure what my themes were about, but to par my characters, plot and structure down into short succinct ideas, and then combine those ideas to make a compelling narrative - took about two weeks, working at it for something like five hours a day. This doesn't sound too long. Then you realise that this is only 250 words I'm talking about. I wrote, and rewrote, and agonised, and cut, and scrapped, and started from scratch, and cursed and got second opinion and third opinions and went through at least 100 drafts of 250 words.
So. Whatever way you look at it, creating a query is evil. But once you have one, they can be gold in so many ways. Once you've had to write a query, you know what you want your book to be about - you know it's essence, not just the big things that make it go. And in my honest opinion, once you know the essence of a book, you can fix anything that's wrong with the plot, story, characters or structure. That fixing may take a entire rethink. (That circumstantially is what I'm doing with The Manda). or you may find your query closer to what you wanted than you thought it would be. Either way, once you nail a query, you've nailed your stories soul.
Then there's just the problem of communicating that to a reader, which is a whole different kettle of fish. That's where the perception gap between what a writer wants to say, and what a reader actually receives from you words, comes up.
But with a query, at least you have a start.
So my suggestion: write your story. Either planning or not planning, however you will. Then agonise over your query. Then, once you've got your query, and know it off by heart, (you will to - believe me, you can't create a query and not be able to quote it in your sleep by the time you've done) look again at your story. Take a good long look. Try and put yourself in the place of the reader, and see how big that perception gap is. If it's huge, make it smaller, until you can't notice one. Then, depending on what type of person you are, send it to a beta reader, or to a publisher. You'll either get a rejection, telling you that that gap is still there, or a report back from your beta reader, telling you that that gap is still there. Read the query again. And again. Think about the soul of your piece, and shorten that gap.
It's worth it. That "ah-ha!" moment you get on figuring out what's wrong is like drinking a redbull + espresso + no-doze shot. That sort of zing is worth being given a Medicare number for financial re-reimbursement.
(Oh, and this is written to hype myself up before I start query writing for my steam punk novel. There is a hidden motive here - if I remind myself of the benefits, I may actually look forwards to putting myself through the hell of writing a query. I'm also going to revise the Manda - this is to hype myself up for that too.)
Anyway, regardless of your motive in writing a query, know that they are evil to create. But bloody useful thereafter.
Enjoy creating~
Sian
Unfortunately, you can't just come out and say this (Imagine that - I am a good writer, and this is the best most fantastical book ever). No, instead you have to show them that by weaving a compelling and individual narrative (ie, you can't have just a premise - you have to show what happens in your book, what the stakes are for your character, and give some hint of what they do).
There should be conflict, tension, character, plot, good writing... in about 250 words. Thus, queries have a reputation for being evil. Their primary purpose is to sell your book, or net it some representation from an agent.
But for me, at least, queries have quite a nifty little second use, which is not quite as evil as the first one.
Okay, you've got 250 words. In that sort of space, you can't muck about. A query forces you to get to the very essence of what your story, characters, themes and ideas are about. That's what makes it so bloody hard - most of us don't try and think that way to start off with. Whether you're a planner or a discovery writer, most people will think out their plot, characters and story, but they won't think about the essence of all those things. And most people don't know what the essence of their story is. Well, they have a generic idea. For example, my story The Manda was about shades of grey in people and civilisations - the idea that no-one is right; that there is only perspective, and while a person can be kind in one instance, they can be downright horrible in the next.
But that has been done before. It's a very broad idea of what my story is about. In a query, you need to be specific - you have to figure out the essence of your story, characters, plot ect, and then you have to figure out what makes it individual, fun, terrifying, brilliant.
This takes forever, or at least it does for me. I spent hours on my last query - it didn't take too long to figure what my themes were about, but to par my characters, plot and structure down into short succinct ideas, and then combine those ideas to make a compelling narrative - took about two weeks, working at it for something like five hours a day. This doesn't sound too long. Then you realise that this is only 250 words I'm talking about. I wrote, and rewrote, and agonised, and cut, and scrapped, and started from scratch, and cursed and got second opinion and third opinions and went through at least 100 drafts of 250 words.
So. Whatever way you look at it, creating a query is evil. But once you have one, they can be gold in so many ways. Once you've had to write a query, you know what you want your book to be about - you know it's essence, not just the big things that make it go. And in my honest opinion, once you know the essence of a book, you can fix anything that's wrong with the plot, story, characters or structure. That fixing may take a entire rethink. (That circumstantially is what I'm doing with The Manda). or you may find your query closer to what you wanted than you thought it would be. Either way, once you nail a query, you've nailed your stories soul.
Then there's just the problem of communicating that to a reader, which is a whole different kettle of fish. That's where the perception gap between what a writer wants to say, and what a reader actually receives from you words, comes up.
But with a query, at least you have a start.
So my suggestion: write your story. Either planning or not planning, however you will. Then agonise over your query. Then, once you've got your query, and know it off by heart, (you will to - believe me, you can't create a query and not be able to quote it in your sleep by the time you've done) look again at your story. Take a good long look. Try and put yourself in the place of the reader, and see how big that perception gap is. If it's huge, make it smaller, until you can't notice one. Then, depending on what type of person you are, send it to a beta reader, or to a publisher. You'll either get a rejection, telling you that that gap is still there, or a report back from your beta reader, telling you that that gap is still there. Read the query again. And again. Think about the soul of your piece, and shorten that gap.
It's worth it. That "ah-ha!" moment you get on figuring out what's wrong is like drinking a redbull + espresso + no-doze shot. That sort of zing is worth being given a Medicare number for financial re-reimbursement.
(Oh, and this is written to hype myself up before I start query writing for my steam punk novel. There is a hidden motive here - if I remind myself of the benefits, I may actually look forwards to putting myself through the hell of writing a query. I'm also going to revise the Manda - this is to hype myself up for that too.)
Anyway, regardless of your motive in writing a query, know that they are evil to create. But bloody useful thereafter.
Enjoy creating~
Sian
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Betaing and the Revelation of the Perception Gap
Something odd happens to a person when they write a story out. It becomes very precious to them - they'll put up with all sorts of crap from it because they love it. I can say in all honesty that that is one reason that I've not given up on the Manda after about 5 drafts - I adore this idea and these characters. Never mind the plot holes, unsympathetic characters and the like.
This is a good thing - it allows a writer to go through the insanity of drafting, re drafting, editing, nit picking and so on. But the very obvious down side to being in love with you work is that you don't see it's flaws.
This is where the Beta reader comes in handy. these are the people (they can be other writers or just readers) that go over your work and point out everything that your love addled brain can't see. Now, some of these things you will notice if you leave the manuscript alone long enough, but you will never be able to pick up all the problems.
So the Beta readers point out the problems, and explain why they are problems. You can either agree or disagree (a lot comes down to perception as well, as it tends to do when it comes to that which is creative) but if more than one beta points something out, then you know you've got a problem.
This is bloody useful because once they explain something to you several times around, you actually start to get it, and notice it yourself, sometimes even while you're writing it. But even more useful a process, is your reciprocation.
While someone is tearing apart your piece, and you're feeling like crap about it, you get to tear apart theirs. Now why is this important? It's important due to the fact that you know exactly how they feel about this piece (it's their baby, they're attached to it, it has not a fault in the world) because you are feeling exactly the same thing as they tuck into yours.
And once you make that empathetic connection, you start to think that maybe they're not being vindictive when they point things out. Maybe this is god to honest what they see when they read your work.
Which brings me to the single most important thing that beta reading reveals. The gap between author intent, and what the reader actually receives in character, plot and narration.
Say you write a story about a woman who runs away with her child, out of what you want to communicate is an emotionally abusive relationship. However, your reader sees her as a hypocritical bitch who has just kidnapped a man's life and joy. That is a huge gap - the closer you bring the readers perception of the story and what you intend to say, together, the better your story gets.
Now, this isn't to say you can close that gap for everyone. A perception gap relies on... well, perception. So when it comes to betas you can take one of two roads - either rely on your instincts as to what the beta is correct/incorrect about, or have more than one beta. Or a combination of both.
I have immensely enjoyed both betaing for other people, and having them beta for me. It broke me out of the "writing for myself" stage, and drew me on to "writing for an audience". Strangely enough, when you're writing for someone else, you start to do things in your novels a lot more consciously.
I've found it useful :D
Enjoy creating~
Sian
This is a good thing - it allows a writer to go through the insanity of drafting, re drafting, editing, nit picking and so on. But the very obvious down side to being in love with you work is that you don't see it's flaws.
This is where the Beta reader comes in handy. these are the people (they can be other writers or just readers) that go over your work and point out everything that your love addled brain can't see. Now, some of these things you will notice if you leave the manuscript alone long enough, but you will never be able to pick up all the problems.
So the Beta readers point out the problems, and explain why they are problems. You can either agree or disagree (a lot comes down to perception as well, as it tends to do when it comes to that which is creative) but if more than one beta points something out, then you know you've got a problem.
This is bloody useful because once they explain something to you several times around, you actually start to get it, and notice it yourself, sometimes even while you're writing it. But even more useful a process, is your reciprocation.
While someone is tearing apart your piece, and you're feeling like crap about it, you get to tear apart theirs. Now why is this important? It's important due to the fact that you know exactly how they feel about this piece (it's their baby, they're attached to it, it has not a fault in the world) because you are feeling exactly the same thing as they tuck into yours.
And once you make that empathetic connection, you start to think that maybe they're not being vindictive when they point things out. Maybe this is god to honest what they see when they read your work.
Which brings me to the single most important thing that beta reading reveals. The gap between author intent, and what the reader actually receives in character, plot and narration.
Say you write a story about a woman who runs away with her child, out of what you want to communicate is an emotionally abusive relationship. However, your reader sees her as a hypocritical bitch who has just kidnapped a man's life and joy. That is a huge gap - the closer you bring the readers perception of the story and what you intend to say, together, the better your story gets.
Now, this isn't to say you can close that gap for everyone. A perception gap relies on... well, perception. So when it comes to betas you can take one of two roads - either rely on your instincts as to what the beta is correct/incorrect about, or have more than one beta. Or a combination of both.
I have immensely enjoyed both betaing for other people, and having them beta for me. It broke me out of the "writing for myself" stage, and drew me on to "writing for an audience". Strangely enough, when you're writing for someone else, you start to do things in your novels a lot more consciously.
I've found it useful :D
Enjoy creating~
Sian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)