General note. Pay particular attention to your opening. Obviously, you try to keep the quality up, but the first couple of pages is the hook in the mouth of the fish.
This is only a personal thing, but I think it'd be better if people posted at least 3(longish) or 4 paragraphs of text. A lot of people are putting one or two paragraphs in at a time and not particularly regularly (I imagine one small paragraph a day would be ok, at least the progress could be seen). If you can't be that regular, put it in a word doc until you are ready to put up. This will also flag up most grammatical and spelling issues. Carry On! Lesson Five: The Narrator will be up tomorrow. Probably.
Make a plot outline for your Chapter/Posts. I'm finding planning even a rough outline for what you want to do with the story, or plot arc for Story Debating, provides a great deal of help for getting the gears grinding. Especially when your stalled at say the middle but can finish the end. At which point going back to the middle is a bit easier since all you need to do is backtrack.. Or however. Even a few paragraphs for a basic structure seems to help me.
Yeah. Watch out for the pitfalls of over organisation though ( a stiff structure, predictability, etc). A good idea is to go against your natural instincts from time to time. I mean, if you are naturally organized and tidy minded, let loose a little in your writing. Practice some stream of consciousness writing. See what comes from it. If (like me), you have the organizational skills of a puppy on coffee, then putting yourself under some regulation (two hours writing a day, set forms (in poetry) or extra plot work) can really prove useful.
I find the wordcount to be useful, and it is quite possible to administer a 500-a-day rule on yourself. It doesn't sound like much, granted, but with due care and attention it takes time nonetheless, with the added bonus that you'll probably overshoot by sheer kinetic impetus. As regards foreplanning and structure, I'll add a little extra while I munch on lunch as regards the writing of individual scenes: -It is important, naturally, to never have any such thing as a 'filler' scene. -That is to say, never write a character doing something just because you feel the need to write something, or you feel anal enough to connect point A and point B with a detailed description of the roads driven down. If at any point you catch yourself doing this, stop: It's better to miss your nightly wordcount than to write something mediocre, dull or irrelevant. (And as for wordcounts, even with one as low as 500, I miss mine more often than not.) To aid in avoiding this, my personal tack (though by no means everyone's) is to to try to give each and every scene a 'theme', in-line with the general character of the story or the plot thus far. If you are making a bit of social commentary, the theme of a scene could be loneliness, or the blindness of ambition, or the happiness found in naivete or whatever. If you're going for character-based stuff, maybe the feelings of someone losing a loved one, or gaining a child. If it is militaristic in nature, insert-your-cliche-here. The good thing about such an approach is that, by default, it adds a subtext to what you are writing, and encourages elements of foreshadowing and deeper thinking on the background of each scene. The drawback, of course, is that you may get carried away, and sometimes it is wise just to let go and write something uncomplicated about something big going boom. So for each scene, think a little beforehand: Firstly, what is the function of this scene as it applies to the over-plot, and secondly, what is the theme you are going to embed in the subtext? Answer both of these questions before starting to write, and you will never create filler. EDIT: That said, I don't always practice what I preach.
I'd disagree slightly, but only slightly. Its ok to write filler (sometimes when I'm writing a poem, I even have a line that goes ta-da-ti da or something) as long as you know it's filler (it helps if you italicize or embolden it) and go back and change it. But, for crikey's sake, make sure you do. Obviously, the above is for filler to get you to a point if you are stuck with the 'block'.
Two tips. 1. Know your character archetype. Even professional writers--especially in science fiction and specifically in military sf--tend to dip into a pot of stock personalities or thinly veiled takes on themselves and their acquaintances that often match poorly to the character they want to develop. Don't choke the reader on a variety of angst-ridden, purple haired, introverted space naval aviators who--with no other area of professional competence--are absurdly capable pilots who kvetch anytime the author feels the need to add some character depth. This goes doubly for all you sickos who feel the need to cast females in this particular role. 2. Go for the wider audience. Homages will work to a certain extent with diehard fans of an existing franchise. But then again, everybody does homages, so why should I read your crap instead of Billy's? A trick I use is to try sketching out the story and characters in a complete different genre before commiting any sf tapestry If you're penning a war story, try seeing if it's compelling in if the setting was present-day Iraq or any of the other three dozen or so combat theaters around the world. If you're telling a cautionary tale about dangers of technology, see if the basic idea works well with an historical analogue such as the development of steam engines or nuclear weapons. If it's about xenophobia, try the story out with our own experiences with first contact and bigotry. Most importantly, if you're writing to Western audiences spare us the Japanofanboy send ups and characters from low-born nobility with ten or more names. Remember, most of us are still pretty homophobic and will likely to see any such foolishness as a sign of an effeminate author reverting to the state of mind of a 12 year old fangirl.
On 2. you're kinda missing the point of some types of SF. Sometimes the idea of SF is to explore what ifs, these can't exist in a historical analogue because they never happened before. If you're just doing a standard story and setting it in space for no partifcular reason part 2 will work, but that's not what everyone wants to do.
Somthing I found An archive of scripts for most scifi shows. I would imagine writers really benefiting from this as it is a great source for events, dialogues etc. for fanfics which take place at key events etc. enjoy, ali
Anyone can analogize anything. The trick here is doing it well enough so that you can identify what an audience would find compelling about your idea. Even postmodernists condescend to analogy when ranting and raving about their work. SF--if it aspires to any sort of critical success--doesn't have nearly enough street cred to avoid reaching to a general audience's experience. That "standard" story is what separates your work from a setting sketch or a plot outline. Chuck it at your own risk.
The setting has little to do with if it is science fiction or fantasy. YOu can have a techonligal fantasy. Perfect examples are "star wars", Dune, babylon 5 etc. The best test to see if a story is science fiction is to take away the science/technology and see if you can tell the same story. If you can. then it's not science fiction. If you can't then you got a winner.
*clears throat* "Sittin' here eatin' my heart out waitin' Waitin' for some writer to call Dialled about a thousand numbers lately Almost rang the phone off the wall Lookin' for some update baby this evenin' I need some update baby tonight I want some update baby this evenin' Gotta have some update Gotta have some update tonight Update I need update I want some update I need update" ...anyway, would you update this thread soon, hymenbreach? You were on a good roll here, before you just stopped. I demand (respectfully) that you post Lesson V (5) : The Narrator (the voice in your head). I found the stuff in this thread immensly helpful, so don't you dare stop now or I shall start singing again.
hey all, sorry about the delay updating. New job, still knackered after working 42.5 hours. Soon as used to it, will be back. End of this week should see something. thanks for asking.
Lesson Five: The Narrator will be posted tomorrow, unless I forget the 'ing disk again like I did today. Humph.
[grump]arse! now there's a problem with the disk and/or drive.[/grump] Sigh. Will try a few tricks of the trade, so if not later then tomorrow.
Lesson Five: The Narrator FLASH! The narrator is not the same person as the author. FLASH! If the novel or story was a film, then the narrator would perform the following functions on set: Cameraman, Director, Scriptwriter, Make up artist and Cinematographer (plus maybe a couple of others). In short, the narrator gives the story to the reader. You pan the camera in to the microscopic, pull it out to the global. You describe the character, the mood, the music, everything. Though with the caveat that you shouldn't lose the story (or the pace of the story) amongst the 'camera work' or 'cinematography'. Also be careful how much description you give to the reader. Not everything has to be explicit. A clever narrator can make things implicit, that is to make something seem obvious without making a simple, bald statements. You can even, with some practice and skill, make something seem obvious by not mentioning it at all. For example, you could have Tom, Jack and Emily in a room. If you make Tom and Emily appear really nice (to the point of being obsequious - that is, subservient) to Jack so that the reader could infer either: A: Jack is really powerful, unpredictable and/or dangerous B: Jack deserves their respect (he saved them or he is of an higher caste/class) C: Jack is seriously ill D: Some other reason and it should only really become obvious through revelation, context, observation or deduction but never through plain statement (except maybe for shock value). Once you get to grips with this then you can start to play games with the reader. So you could give the impression of A in the above example and only at the end make it plain that C is the case (or vice versa). Oh, don't worry, it's perfectly ok to trick, confuse and generally mess the reader about if you never commit the authorial crimes of dullness or inconsistency. Third Person vs First Person These are the two main types of Narrator. The 'Third person' is the type that goes, for example: Conan did this and then Conan did that. The 'First person' is the type of tale told as if by a living person, so it is written more like: I did this and then I did that. The Third person narrator is known sometimes as the omniscient (all-knowing) narrator as they act like a god, pulling string, describing actions, knowing things that the characters don't know and so on. It is generally best for large scale narratives encompassing many strands and plotlines, though the 'camera' can also keep on the intimate level. Because it sees the world from the point of view of one of the stories characters and thus the reader only knows those things that the narrator knows, (or see below: appears to know), First person stories tend to concentrate on the more intimate dramas (even if they take part during momentous times). A friendly warning! It is incredibly important not to 'leak' information into your narrating first person character. The reader can spot a cheat a mile off. This makes writing 'intuitive' characters very difficult to pull off. Like in Math, you must show the working out! You must also avoid making the First person narrator a proxy for yourself, that also shows up more easily than you would think and nobody likes to watch a person masturbating their ego. If you're like me when this was explained, you'll probably be wondering about 2nd person. Well, this is normally only found in Choose-your-own-adventure stories, poetry and maybe some computer games. They say 'You do this and then you did that'. I suppose you could do something avant garde with this, but let's stick to the basics for now. Mixings the Viewpoints 95% of fiction is either in the Third or First person. Some authors have attempted to have Third person and First person viewpoints in the same story/novel. This can work, but it takes skill and a little planning not to confuse the reader, not to mention the author. It can be good for bringing on moments of 'Dramatic Tension', that is to say the reader will learn something that the character does not. Dramatic tension works like this. Imagine you are reading about General Custer waking up on the morning of The Little Big Horn and he's thinking that that he will greeted as a hero in Washington after he has dealt easily with the Sioux. That's dramatic tension. Another common mix of viewpoints is having different characters telling the story from a first person view. Needless to say, it is of the utmost importance to keep your characters very, very, very and even more very distinctive not only in character but in use of language. The moment a reader is halfway confused about who is who, he or she is more than halfway lost. This collection of narrators can be witnessing the same event(s) seen from different standpoints - as in the Decameron - each showing different attitudes or recollections of these event(s), which taken as a whole, reveal a complete picture. Authors use this a lot to comment on the nature of 'truth' or the unreliabilty of opinions and so on. The Unreliable Narrator and Some Advanced Techniques The Narrator, be they First or Third person, is (or should be) closer to being a character than being the author. As individuals they should be just as capable of being mistaken, biased, prejudiced, untrustworthy and downright dishonest as anyone else. A dull character is a dull character, even if they are telling the story, so as with other creations, try to avoid moustache twirling villains or self-sacrificing saints as narrators. I think one of the best examples of the 'unreliable narrator' is in the Agatha Christie's detective novel 'Lord Edgeware Dies..'. It's a hoary old English style whodunit, but we never learn until the end that the narrator is the killer! Or you could write a war story which makes the hero seem very sympathetic and brave and then make it obvious at the end that he or she is definitely on the side of the baddies. Or a fantasy novel where it eventually becomes clear that it is only happening in the head of someone deluded. (I think the film K-Pax did something similar). I'll leave other examples to your imagination. Most of these take advantage of the fact that most fiction is seen from the viewpoint of a 'sympathetic' character, whom the reader trusts to be honest or at least 'reliable'. Another thing you can do is what Mark Haddon did in his novel 'The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time", where he writes the narrative in the first person, but from the viewpoint of a boy with severe (ish) Autism, so everything is very literal, without being literary. Finally, you could take the unreliable narrator to its extreme limit. William Burroughs wrote a straight novel about a drug taker and then cut all the paragraphs up and threw them in the air, assembling them randomly. This gave the reader an insight on the disorganised (yet very similar) world of the Junkie. Nabokov's 'Lolita' has another unreliable narrator in Humbert Humbert. Is he being brutally honest or is he indulging in self-justification? It's worth noting that it's infinitely trickier to do the 'Unreliable' narrator in the Third Person, but not impossible. One final version of the "First Person' narrator is the 'Epistolary' novel. This is written in the form of letters, written by one or more characters that reveal an ongoing story. Examples include 'Clarissa' by, erk, I've forgotten and Les Liason Dangereux, by ,erk, I have also forgotten. Helen Fielding's (I remembered!) The Diary of Bridget Jones probably counts as an Epistolary novel. Final Points (unless I remember more) Remember the flash at the beginning? Well, that's important. The better authors try to leave their own viewpoints on society (be they liberal or conservative) at the door. The narrator should be a separate character but that character does not need be you! In fact, I recommend trying to create a narrator who has different views on a particular subject from you. If you manage to avoid the cliches of your opposite viewpoints, you could just write something unexpected and very interesting. Oh, lord, what you must avoid doing is stopping at any point to use the narrator to pontificate or preach on any personal bugbear. If we want lessons, we'll take a class. This is not to say that you can't write with your personal philosophy/philosophies in mind, but make them lie lightly on top of your fiction like a sprinkling of sugar and not like a layer of fat. ********************************************************************** Lesson 6: Humour The three funniest places on Earth are said to be: A - Murder Scenes (after the police get there, not during the act, obviously) B - Battlefields C - Hospitals/Morgues (think M.A.S.H for B and C) Why? Probably because happy people do not need to hear jokes. This is not going to be an essay on humour as such things are never much fun. Instead, life being what it is, it will be easier for me to tell you what isn't funny than what is amusing. Funny People An amusing person does not have to be constantly funny or even aware of their own comedy value. Three of the funniest people in fiction are Hercules Poirot, Columbo and Cugel (from Cugel's Saga by Jack Vance). Neither one of them has ever told a joke (well, maybe one each, but not constantly). Poirot has a brilliant mind, but is an absurd figure, with his peculiar moustache and his planet sized ego. Columbo, if you don't know, is a scruffy, smelly shambling detective who is generally underestimated and laughed at by his better dressed but much dumber criminal opponents. Cugel is a smart fellow who always has a cunning, witty plan to make his fortune and then generally has it taken off him by smarter, more cunning and wittier opponents (or just bad luck). There are few less humorous things on the planet than a person trying to hard to be funny. This goes for fictional characters as well as in real life. Such people are often described as 'zany'. Zany people should be beaten with sticks until they desist. Zany books should also be beaten with sticks until they become dictionaries. There are a ton of ways to make a person funny. Make him lack any kind of self knowledge (or desperate to ignore it) such as Rimmer from Red Dwarf, Brent from The Office and Larry David are just some examples of that. Make him or her accident prone (though this is tiring if over done) or unworldly. Think of examples from fiction of amusing characters, you'll see. Of course, you can make a character funny by being witty and sharp tongued, but only if the author is equally witty. Otherwise it is like the sad role-playing experience of watching someone monumentally dumb trying to role-play a higher intelligence than they themselves have. Humor in the Writing A book that also tries to be funny on every single page is also doomed. Even funny classics like Catch 22 have sections where you look at your watch a lot. Terry Pratchett just about gets away with it, though he has other faults that may be mentioned later. Craig Shaw Gardner doesn't get away with it. The moral is 'Let the joke chase you, don't chase the joke.' So if you find something you are writing has become funny, think about why. If you think you can safely build on it, fine. If you think it doesn't suit and needs to be cut, also fine. One of the best uses of humour (as in the examples at the start) is to break tension or show a level of humanity in bleak situations or places. It can also highlight just how grim things are in the plot. I still remember the scientists sharing a joke in 'The Thing' among the carnage. If you are trying to write a consistently funny book (though even these should have moments of tension and excitement) try to use different methods of comedy for different situations and characters. Try to keep your characters from becoming slaves to the joke. This is the major fault of Terry Pratchett. Although humour can be used to break or heighten tension, be careful that you don't kill the pace of a particular scene or scenes with jokes. It should be grafted seamlessly. An example of it being grafted seamfully would be having a Laurel and Hardy like scene in a 40k setting. Satire Satire is the posh word for what the English call ‘taking the piss’ or ridiculing some group in, or aspect of, society or humanity. The most common form of satire is take one of these groups or aspects and take it to its logical (but at the same time obviously insane) conclusion. Examples are Military bureaucracy in Catch 22, office bureaucracy (and computer support personnel) in ‘The I.T Crowd’ and more or less everything in ‘The Simpsons.’ The general rule of thumb is that the more topical the subject (President Bush, for example), the quicker it will age and become mystifyingly irrelevant. Still, that’s no reason not to point at laugh at transient things. Be careful that you realize this if you want to write something that will last. The Bit at the End Mostly, the above can be summed up by not trying too hard and if a joke lands and fits then keep it. Don’t force a funny scene in and make sure it’s there for a reason.
As you can see I have crossed through dank forests of crappy memory and the hot forests of stupid machinery. Enjoy. Thanks for the support and the gee up.
Lesson 6: Humour up (on this page). Two lessons in a week? Yeah, I'm going crazeee. Anyway next lesson may be.... combat scenes or editting or getting published. I haven't decided yet.
I wonder Hymen, have you forgotten this topic? The lesson about combat scenes sounds most intriguing to me
I noticed (not sure if this has been addressed yet) in the "story timeline" area, that you never mentioned a "3, 1, 2, 3" story. This is the story that starts at the end and then goes "oh, shit, you don't know how this happened? Back to the beginning!" like in, say, God of War. It starts at the very end, then goes "...oh" and takes you back to the beginning, where you play through until you hit the end again, then occasionally it continues until the TRUE end (which would be more like 2, 1, 3, admittedly) happens. I always felt those were some of the most enticing kinds of stories because it gives you this scenario, and stuff happens, and you go "...how?" and then it tells you. Sort of like an automatic fish-hook to get you into the story.
I'd just like to say a few things, and then I'll be done with it. So bare with me if you feel like reading this: Since most of the stuff you're posting up here is Science Fiction, I think the best way to make your story sound plausible, relevant, and more genuine is study what kind of fandom you're going into and figure out just a little bit of science that goes behind your fic. You don't need EXTENSIVE knowledge of a particular subject, but it'll greatly enhance your writing, because it sounds more authentic, and it gives your work more credibility. This way, although some might know what you're talking about, your writing will portray the fact that you might actually know how your scenes will work out. For example, instead of having this sentence: "It's a black hole." Bob reported. It's very vague, and all you know is that it's a laser. Now, if you were to tweak it, it would sound more like this: "Spectrum is off the charts!" Bob widened his eyes in amazement. "Light particles are redshifting over the horizon. I think we've found our black hole." You see, now not ONLY do you make it more interesting for the reader, you're saying a few things now: 1) You're intelligent and you understand ALL of the science behind your work. 2) You're portraying your characters better. The better you get, the more you'll vary the way that characters say and act in certain situations. 3) You show that you actually put time into your work, and it definitely is more mind grabbing and more riveting for the reader. Second however, is description. I absolutely hate it when the writing builds up this suspense, and all this prolonging for an action scene or a battle, and completely BLOWS it because they don't live up to the expectations. DESCRIBE your action scenes. The reader WANTS to know what you're talking about and he wants to see the battle in his head. You don't want to go overboard, but you want to make sure that the reader can easily visualize the battle in his head, and can see the action going on. Also, you definitely want to add more pace and vigor to the writing at this point, because battles are the juices of all science fiction war stories. That's what powers them, and the better you are at writing your battles, the more your reader will wait for the next one. I've seen fics, where they've explained battles like this: Jack kicked the Elite in the stomach and shot it in the head. I cringe at things like that. You take a big battle, and you're doing this with it: 1) Making the character invincible. 2) Making the enemy weak 3) Those two put together DEGRADES your work completely So instead of that previous sentence, think about this: Jack dodged the Elites energy sword as it hissed over his head, the top of the helmet melting at the mere promixity of the blade. As he ducked, Jack kicked with his leg, connecting with the alien's rib cage. It shattered and the warrior fell backwards with a grunt. Jack quickly recovered and grabbed his battle rifle and before the Elite had the chance to charge once more, speared the alien through the head. So now not only do you lengthen the section, you make sure that the reader knows exactly what's going on. This makes it more exciting. This again does a few different things: 1) Adds suspense in action. By making things unpredicable and unsided, the reader doesn't know what's going to happen next. 2) Makes the enemy a formidable opponent. You NEVER will like it if your hero kicks the crap out of your enemy over and over again with ease. I'm pretty much done now, and I'm not focussed enough to do enough with this post. But I hope you get the two things I just said. =P
My personal thing is talking in a vacuum. I see this more in published works vs. fanfics. It is where two or three characters talk but there is no outside action. Like being at a party but there are no drinks, no music and the drunken blonde isn't flashing her tits in the background. For me as a reader i feel like the author has went into lecture mode. Characters are alive. Live people fumble with pens, belch and fart.
