Just attended a lecture by Shakespeare actor/director/professor Tim Hardy (great), and he mentioned something about how words sound creating a particular effect. He mentioned doing a comedy where for some reason the actor had to say (as the punchline of a joke) the names of two New England states, Vermont and New Hampshire. One time he said it backwards, first New Hampshire, and then Vermont, and it didn't get much of a laugh. The next performance he got it right, Vermont then New Hampshire, and got a huge laugh. They were puzzling over the difference in response, because it didn't matter to the joke itself which came first.
He mentioned this to the comic playwright Neil Simon, who said immediately, "You can't end with Vermont, because Vermont isn't funny." He didn't mean the state (which isn't more or less funny), but rather the sound. "Hampshire" is funny, see, because of that P in the middle.
Mr. Simon averred that propulsive letters (P, B, and F), the ones that SPIT, are inherently funny, and that an ending word with one of those will cause more laughter. (Also said that "L" was NOT a funny sound, which is funny, because, you know, "laugh.")
This goes along with my thought that ending words in sentences and especially paragraphs are either "upbeat" or "downbeat," and that an upbeat ending ("Okay?") calls for a downbeat ending ("Yeah, okay."). The sound of words-- even in written prose!-- causes an emotional and mental effect on the listener/reader, and if we want to have "natural" sounding prose and especially dialogue, we should be aware of that (unless we do it naturally, in which case we shouldn't mess with it... but if we're ever accused of having "wooden or stilted" prose, we're probably not doing this naturally).
Sound matters, even in written prose.... and it matters even more with sophisticated readers, and editors and agents (and bookbuyers) are usually sophisticated readers!
Alicia
Monday, February 28, 2011
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Software for writers?
Who has used writing/plotting/organizing applications for writers? (Like Dramatica.) Can you give me some titles and descriptions? Someone asked me, and I thought of:
Write or Die
Dramatica
Scrivener
What about for screenwriters?
Alicia
Write or Die
Dramatica
Scrivener
What about for screenwriters?
Alicia
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Friday, February 25, 2011
Today at RU - POV and Submissions Guidelines
Today at Romance University, I'm talking about pov choices in romance novels and how to know if your choice is right for your target market.
Come join in the discussion!
Theresa
Come join in the discussion!
Theresa
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Your Setting Examples - #5
Today's example was custom made by Susan Helene Gottfried using an existing character from her books. She wrote this as an exercise for this setting thing we're doing. Let's take a look.
The things men do for their wives, he thought. The door weighed nothing and slipped out of his fingers. It crashed into the metal chair rail on the full-length windows. Weird how he looked through all that glass and could only see himself. Distorted. Fuckin' A.
He'd expected sterile rows of glass grocery-store cases inside, with half-dome fronts. Instead of seafood, these would be loaded with truffles and bon-bons and bark and all that shit girls craved.
Nope. No cases. Tables. Round ones. They'd seat two in a restaurant. Each covered by a tablecloth so bright, he wanted his sunglasses. Each stacked with chocolate. Every table had a theme and a flower post on a pedestal -- every bit as gaudy as the damn tablecloths -- holding a hard-to-read, hand-lettered sign.
He groaned. Deciphering what was what would take all day. He'd need another day to decide what to placate her with.
He only had an hour.
When Susan and I were originally tweeting about her exercise, she told me she was struggling to get it down to 150 words and preserve the character voice. Even if she hadn't told me that, though, we'd be using this example as an opportunity to discuss point of view and setting.
Every detail in this setting is viewed through the strong lens of this character's point of view. This particular man notices particular details that another might not notice. This is great. This is what we want to see. This is step one in connecting the character to the environment. Maybe a PMSing woman walks in and sees only the truffles. Maybe a state health inspector focuses on the open displays. Characters perceive environments in different ways.
In this case, we have a musician whose eyes are probably sensitive from exposure to stage lighting, and consequently he notices the brightness of the colors and the tininess of the text. But the chocolates themselves hardly rate a descriptive mention after that first scornful "all that shit" line. This is all character-specific.
But that's just the first step in joining the character to the setting. What's step two? It's something Susan is doing very well here. All those viewpoint-specific setting details are pinging off this guy's radar. He is INTERACTING, not merely noticing. And he's doing it all without making a single gesture. First we get the contrast of his expectations versus the reality. Then we get a taste of his scorn for the very thing he's there to buy. Then we get his visceral reaction to the tablecloths, followed by an emotional reaction. Then we get his whining about the signs. It's very deftly done.
If this were a real piece rather than an exercise, I would be extremely pleased with the way the setting was handled, but Susan and I might be talking about ways to make this guy a little more warm in this moment. We might talk about tempering his negativity with genuine worry about his wife. We'd be killing that thought tag in the first line (it's unnecessary when the pov is already this deep and clear), and we'd be shifting that first paragraph so he's not thinking about himself but about his wife. But that's a separate issue unrelated to setting. I only point it out because, you know, I'm incorrigible that way. Tinkering with that first paragraph would shift the entire tone of the piece so that we might feel more sympathy for this guy.
Now, here's an exercise for anyone who cares to do it. I want you to take this chocolate shop setting as set up by Susan and put another character in it. In the comments, give me a one-sentence description of this character. Then give me three things this character will notice about this environment. And then give me one unique way this character will react to one of those three things.
Ready, set, go! :)
Theresa
The things men do for their wives, he thought. The door weighed nothing and slipped out of his fingers. It crashed into the metal chair rail on the full-length windows. Weird how he looked through all that glass and could only see himself. Distorted. Fuckin' A.
He'd expected sterile rows of glass grocery-store cases inside, with half-dome fronts. Instead of seafood, these would be loaded with truffles and bon-bons and bark and all that shit girls craved.
Nope. No cases. Tables. Round ones. They'd seat two in a restaurant. Each covered by a tablecloth so bright, he wanted his sunglasses. Each stacked with chocolate. Every table had a theme and a flower post on a pedestal -- every bit as gaudy as the damn tablecloths -- holding a hard-to-read, hand-lettered sign.
He groaned. Deciphering what was what would take all day. He'd need another day to decide what to placate her with.
He only had an hour.
When Susan and I were originally tweeting about her exercise, she told me she was struggling to get it down to 150 words and preserve the character voice. Even if she hadn't told me that, though, we'd be using this example as an opportunity to discuss point of view and setting.
Every detail in this setting is viewed through the strong lens of this character's point of view. This particular man notices particular details that another might not notice. This is great. This is what we want to see. This is step one in connecting the character to the environment. Maybe a PMSing woman walks in and sees only the truffles. Maybe a state health inspector focuses on the open displays. Characters perceive environments in different ways.
In this case, we have a musician whose eyes are probably sensitive from exposure to stage lighting, and consequently he notices the brightness of the colors and the tininess of the text. But the chocolates themselves hardly rate a descriptive mention after that first scornful "all that shit" line. This is all character-specific.
But that's just the first step in joining the character to the setting. What's step two? It's something Susan is doing very well here. All those viewpoint-specific setting details are pinging off this guy's radar. He is INTERACTING, not merely noticing. And he's doing it all without making a single gesture. First we get the contrast of his expectations versus the reality. Then we get a taste of his scorn for the very thing he's there to buy. Then we get his visceral reaction to the tablecloths, followed by an emotional reaction. Then we get his whining about the signs. It's very deftly done.
If this were a real piece rather than an exercise, I would be extremely pleased with the way the setting was handled, but Susan and I might be talking about ways to make this guy a little more warm in this moment. We might talk about tempering his negativity with genuine worry about his wife. We'd be killing that thought tag in the first line (it's unnecessary when the pov is already this deep and clear), and we'd be shifting that first paragraph so he's not thinking about himself but about his wife. But that's a separate issue unrelated to setting. I only point it out because, you know, I'm incorrigible that way. Tinkering with that first paragraph would shift the entire tone of the piece so that we might feel more sympathy for this guy.
Now, here's an exercise for anyone who cares to do it. I want you to take this chocolate shop setting as set up by Susan and put another character in it. In the comments, give me a one-sentence description of this character. Then give me three things this character will notice about this environment. And then give me one unique way this character will react to one of those three things.
Ready, set, go! :)
Theresa
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Your Setting Examples - #4
Today's setting example comes to us from Leona Bushman, longtime friend of the blog. If you're not already following her on twitter, consider adding her because her feed is big fun. Let's take a look at her sample.
No. They wanted the person in the file they were holding. She leaned back on the old wooden chair and put her feet up on the matching desk. She had a moment's unease as she wondered if that brown stain was coffee-or blood. These men were an unknown to her.
The blue suit, as she thought of the slightly shorter, more dour of the partners, held her file. She recognized it from her stint in the military hospital after some freak biological substance had leaked in their neighborhood.
That was back when she was still married--she put an abrupt stop to that train. It had left the station long time ago. She stubbed out her cigarette in the small old-fashioned glass ashtray on the desk. They obviously didn't have an updated dossier on her or they never would have left her with such a hand weapon, much less matches.
Leona presents us with a great opportunity to talk about narrative balance. The setting details are sparse, but that doesn't undermine the piece. In fact, I think this is probably a very good balance for this excerpt.
Why? Because there's emotional tension in the moment that results from the character interaction and premise, and if we were to pause to describe the architecture, it would siphon off some of the tension. Instead, the setting details as presented contribute in subtle ways to the tension. There's a file -- we can't see inside it, but the character recognizes it and actively wonders if the contents have changed. There's a stain -- we don't know where, or how large or dark, but we know it could be coffee or blood. There's a lit cigarette and matches -- weapons in the hands of this woman.
The only setting details that don't ratchet up the tension are the ashtray, desk and chair. Everyone take a look at those particular details and then compare them to the other setting details. Notice anything different between the two groups of details? Really look and see what you notice. This is a chance for you to practice using an editorial eye. :)
Done looking? What did you notice? The tension details are presented very cleanly, but the non-tension moments have adjectives. Those adjectives add narrative weight to those non-tension details, with the result that the tension and non-tension details carry a similar amount of narrative impact. The tension details will still feel more oomphy than the adjective details, but adding those adjectives evens things out a bit.
Why would this be a good thing? If we want to create the impression that this character doesn't miss a trick, that she's on permanent high alert, this will get you there. And you won't have to slow the pace to let her absorb a lot of details in a static way. It's incorporated into the action of the moment.
The downside is that it does slightly dilute the impact of the "pow" moments -- bloodstain, weapon -- but those moments are strong enough, and balanced well enough, that they don't disappear. So this is probably a good choice in terms of narrative balance IF the character is meant to be a hyper-attentive type.
My one slight quibble with the setting details derives from this sentence:
She recognized it from her stint in the military hospital after some freak biological substance had leaked in their neighborhood.
Has this backstory been referenced elsewhere before now? This kind of sentence is a cheap and easy way to sneak in a bit of backstory, but there's a problem. We don't know why she recognizes it. What makes this file look different from any other file? Are there markings on it? Because, of course, she doesn't recognize it from her stint in the military hospital. She remembers it from then, but she recognizes it from its size, color, markings, etc.
So we're not getting a visual on this prop, and I think we ought to. If the backstory has already been presented elsewhere, you can pare it down here and replace it with a visual. You probably still want to link the file to her industrial accident somehow, but shift the focus off the backstory and to the present scene moments.
If the backstory has not already been presented, then keep this sentence more or less as it is, and give us a visual on the prop earlier, perhaps in that first sentence or even earlier.
Theresa
No. They wanted the person in the file they were holding. She leaned back on the old wooden chair and put her feet up on the matching desk. She had a moment's unease as she wondered if that brown stain was coffee-or blood. These men were an unknown to her.
The blue suit, as she thought of the slightly shorter, more dour of the partners, held her file. She recognized it from her stint in the military hospital after some freak biological substance had leaked in their neighborhood.
That was back when she was still married--she put an abrupt stop to that train. It had left the station long time ago. She stubbed out her cigarette in the small old-fashioned glass ashtray on the desk. They obviously didn't have an updated dossier on her or they never would have left her with such a hand weapon, much less matches.
Leona presents us with a great opportunity to talk about narrative balance. The setting details are sparse, but that doesn't undermine the piece. In fact, I think this is probably a very good balance for this excerpt.
Why? Because there's emotional tension in the moment that results from the character interaction and premise, and if we were to pause to describe the architecture, it would siphon off some of the tension. Instead, the setting details as presented contribute in subtle ways to the tension. There's a file -- we can't see inside it, but the character recognizes it and actively wonders if the contents have changed. There's a stain -- we don't know where, or how large or dark, but we know it could be coffee or blood. There's a lit cigarette and matches -- weapons in the hands of this woman.
The only setting details that don't ratchet up the tension are the ashtray, desk and chair. Everyone take a look at those particular details and then compare them to the other setting details. Notice anything different between the two groups of details? Really look and see what you notice. This is a chance for you to practice using an editorial eye. :)
Done looking? What did you notice? The tension details are presented very cleanly, but the non-tension moments have adjectives. Those adjectives add narrative weight to those non-tension details, with the result that the tension and non-tension details carry a similar amount of narrative impact. The tension details will still feel more oomphy than the adjective details, but adding those adjectives evens things out a bit.
Why would this be a good thing? If we want to create the impression that this character doesn't miss a trick, that she's on permanent high alert, this will get you there. And you won't have to slow the pace to let her absorb a lot of details in a static way. It's incorporated into the action of the moment.
The downside is that it does slightly dilute the impact of the "pow" moments -- bloodstain, weapon -- but those moments are strong enough, and balanced well enough, that they don't disappear. So this is probably a good choice in terms of narrative balance IF the character is meant to be a hyper-attentive type.
My one slight quibble with the setting details derives from this sentence:
She recognized it from her stint in the military hospital after some freak biological substance had leaked in their neighborhood.
Has this backstory been referenced elsewhere before now? This kind of sentence is a cheap and easy way to sneak in a bit of backstory, but there's a problem. We don't know why she recognizes it. What makes this file look different from any other file? Are there markings on it? Because, of course, she doesn't recognize it from her stint in the military hospital. She remembers it from then, but she recognizes it from its size, color, markings, etc.
So we're not getting a visual on this prop, and I think we ought to. If the backstory has already been presented elsewhere, you can pare it down here and replace it with a visual. You probably still want to link the file to her industrial accident somehow, but shift the focus off the backstory and to the present scene moments.
If the backstory has not already been presented, then keep this sentence more or less as it is, and give us a visual on the prop earlier, perhaps in that first sentence or even earlier.
Theresa
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Today's setting example comes to us from Sylvia Spruck Wrigley, a friend of the blog whose name you might recognize from the comments.
Once out of the park, Clotilde stood still, the sounds and sights of the city surrounding her. Brightly dressed people bustled past on the pavement and the street was full of large car and double-decker buses. Everywhere she looked, something was moving. Her fingers clenched the plastic bag with the advertisement. She resisted the urge to run back to the river and hide. She needed to find someone to give her directions - not the Yank, obviously, but someone who lived here and knew London.
Across the raging traffic she could see a small coffee shop. Clotilde waved at the car until one stopped. She smiled and stepped into the street to cross. The driver hooted his horn and she broke into a run, dodging the rest of the traffic. She practically fell into the coffee shop, shaking the rain from her hair.
What is done well, and what could be done better? I'm impressed with the way prepositional phrases are used to orient the character into a dimensional space. Out of the park, across the traffic, into the street, back to the river. We get a strong sense of what is before and behind the character. That's neatly done.
I think the sense of motion in the world around her is also clear, but I want it to be more concrete. Phrases like "sights and sounds of the city" are too abstract to register a sensory impression. What exactly does she hear? Cars. Footsteps. Horns. What else? What exactly does she see? Cars. People. Pavement. Coffee shop. These words are more concrete than "sights and sounds."
Do we notice anything else about those setting nouns? Most of them are general, though they are concrete. I think this is because the setting details are being presented in the aggregate. We see cars as a group rather than yellow cabs and black sedans and tiny green smart cars. Other than double-decker buses, the street traffic is presented without detail.
You might be thinking that it's better to treat cars and pedestrians in the aggregate in a scene like this -- after all, in this particular excerpt, it does contribute to the sense of busy-ness and bustle to talk about the big groupings of like objects. And that's a good thing. We like the way abundance and aggregation are used to almost overwhelm the reader and character, as if there's so much for her to take in that she can't possibly grasp it all.
But when that car almost hits her? That's when we need to get a bit more specific. That's when the character's focus will shift from the chaos of the many to the problem of the one. Describe that car more specifically. Don't rely on "brightly dressed people" to work as a tag for the driver, either. Give us a flash of him, too, as a specific detail within this setting.
Was anyone else surprised by the rain in the final sentence? I'm assuming that the rain would have been mentioned before now, perhaps when she's still in the park or by the river. But I wonder if it also needs to be mentioned in the context of the setting. Do the pedestrians carry umbrellas? Is there thunder contributing to the noise?
In all, I would characterize this as a good early draft. We have clear orientation and the setting supports and merges with the character's actions. But in a final draft, I would expect some of the less vague details to be made more vibrant and specific.
What else do we see in this setting example?
Thank you, Sylvia, for sharing your paragraphs. Overall, you're on the right track, I think.
Theresa
Once out of the park, Clotilde stood still, the sounds and sights of the city surrounding her. Brightly dressed people bustled past on the pavement and the street was full of large car and double-decker buses. Everywhere she looked, something was moving. Her fingers clenched the plastic bag with the advertisement. She resisted the urge to run back to the river and hide. She needed to find someone to give her directions - not the Yank, obviously, but someone who lived here and knew London.
Across the raging traffic she could see a small coffee shop. Clotilde waved at the car until one stopped. She smiled and stepped into the street to cross. The driver hooted his horn and she broke into a run, dodging the rest of the traffic. She practically fell into the coffee shop, shaking the rain from her hair.
What is done well, and what could be done better? I'm impressed with the way prepositional phrases are used to orient the character into a dimensional space. Out of the park, across the traffic, into the street, back to the river. We get a strong sense of what is before and behind the character. That's neatly done.
I think the sense of motion in the world around her is also clear, but I want it to be more concrete. Phrases like "sights and sounds of the city" are too abstract to register a sensory impression. What exactly does she hear? Cars. Footsteps. Horns. What else? What exactly does she see? Cars. People. Pavement. Coffee shop. These words are more concrete than "sights and sounds."
Do we notice anything else about those setting nouns? Most of them are general, though they are concrete. I think this is because the setting details are being presented in the aggregate. We see cars as a group rather than yellow cabs and black sedans and tiny green smart cars. Other than double-decker buses, the street traffic is presented without detail.
You might be thinking that it's better to treat cars and pedestrians in the aggregate in a scene like this -- after all, in this particular excerpt, it does contribute to the sense of busy-ness and bustle to talk about the big groupings of like objects. And that's a good thing. We like the way abundance and aggregation are used to almost overwhelm the reader and character, as if there's so much for her to take in that she can't possibly grasp it all.
But when that car almost hits her? That's when we need to get a bit more specific. That's when the character's focus will shift from the chaos of the many to the problem of the one. Describe that car more specifically. Don't rely on "brightly dressed people" to work as a tag for the driver, either. Give us a flash of him, too, as a specific detail within this setting.
Was anyone else surprised by the rain in the final sentence? I'm assuming that the rain would have been mentioned before now, perhaps when she's still in the park or by the river. But I wonder if it also needs to be mentioned in the context of the setting. Do the pedestrians carry umbrellas? Is there thunder contributing to the noise?
In all, I would characterize this as a good early draft. We have clear orientation and the setting supports and merges with the character's actions. But in a final draft, I would expect some of the less vague details to be made more vibrant and specific.
What else do we see in this setting example?
Thank you, Sylvia, for sharing your paragraphs. Overall, you're on the right track, I think.
Theresa
A feature, not a bug
Need your help again! If you understand what this term means:
This is a feature, not a bug
And can give me a couple examples, I'd be very grateful! I'm working on finding neologisms which are clever or useful, and this one seems to qualify as both. But I'm having trouble really grasping it.
Thanks for any examples or explanations!
Alicia
This is a feature, not a bug
And can give me a couple examples, I'd be very grateful! I'm working on finding neologisms which are clever or useful, and this one seems to qualify as both. But I'm having trouble really grasping it.
Thanks for any examples or explanations!
Alicia
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Links as the new punctuation mark
Here's an article about hyperlinks as "the new punctuation mark." I'm getting interested in how the web is changing, and has already changed, prose and narrative, and hyperlinking is the most obvious web-based advance, and probably the most important one, as it makes most of the others (video, audio) possible.
I was thinking, btw, of copyright issues. I remember when a friend wanted to use a popular country song as the epigraph of her novel, and she contacted the copyright holder (not the songwriter, actually, but a company-- made me think of how Lennon and McCartney lost control of their own lyrics and music). The company told her she could use the lyrics if she paid $800 and a 1% of the sales of the book. Even if her publisher would have agreed with that last part (it wouldn't-- 1% of the sales price is like 10% of the company's eventual profits from the book), she wasn't about to pay $800 for what would actually be free advertising for the song. So she wrote her own country song, just for the book.
But think about it. Recently I wrote a blog post about synopsis, and how it shouldn't be about the plot but about the whole story. (That's what our March class is about, btw-- described on the right there.) I wanted to make a graphic distinction of the difference between plot and story, and so I linked to a site with the sheet music of Ave Maria (plot) and a Youtube video of Pavarotti singing Ave Maria. So... does a link violate copyright laws? Or is that something Youtube can worry about and I don't have to? (I don't know, but if anyone's going to sue me, I'll take the links down. :)
Our articles and blog posts are frequently posted on other sites (sometimes with, sometimes without our permission), and sometimes there's just a link to our original. Of course, we prefer the latter, as it brings people to our site (not that this means much-- not like we charge or have ads). And it would never occur to me that there was anything wrong with someone putting a link to a post of ours in their own blog or article.
But I bet I would object if someone made a book that was composed primarily of lots of links to our articles and articles written by others-- "The Best Writing Advice Evuh Book!" At least, I'd probably object if the book's compiler made money from it. I don't want someone making money from something we give away for free, after all.
No great wisdom here. But I wonder if we're going to struggle with copyright issues forever now, or if that'll be resolved by people (I hope) smarter than I am.
I was thinking, btw, of copyright issues. I remember when a friend wanted to use a popular country song as the epigraph of her novel, and she contacted the copyright holder (not the songwriter, actually, but a company-- made me think of how Lennon and McCartney lost control of their own lyrics and music). The company told her she could use the lyrics if she paid $800 and a 1% of the sales of the book. Even if her publisher would have agreed with that last part (it wouldn't-- 1% of the sales price is like 10% of the company's eventual profits from the book), she wasn't about to pay $800 for what would actually be free advertising for the song. So she wrote her own country song, just for the book.
But think about it. Recently I wrote a blog post about synopsis, and how it shouldn't be about the plot but about the whole story. (That's what our March class is about, btw-- described on the right there.) I wanted to make a graphic distinction of the difference between plot and story, and so I linked to a site with the sheet music of Ave Maria (plot) and a Youtube video of Pavarotti singing Ave Maria. So... does a link violate copyright laws? Or is that something Youtube can worry about and I don't have to? (I don't know, but if anyone's going to sue me, I'll take the links down. :)
Our articles and blog posts are frequently posted on other sites (sometimes with, sometimes without our permission), and sometimes there's just a link to our original. Of course, we prefer the latter, as it brings people to our site (not that this means much-- not like we charge or have ads). And it would never occur to me that there was anything wrong with someone putting a link to a post of ours in their own blog or article.
But I bet I would object if someone made a book that was composed primarily of lots of links to our articles and articles written by others-- "The Best Writing Advice Evuh Book!" At least, I'd probably object if the book's compiler made money from it. I don't want someone making money from something we give away for free, after all.
No great wisdom here. But I wonder if we're going to struggle with copyright issues forever now, or if that'll be resolved by people (I hope) smarter than I am.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
