As everyone who writes will know, there is no such thing as finished. One goes through and clears up one set of issues only to emerge at the end with a whole new set.
And thus it was with this first draft. I went through. I cross-checked and verified and inserted required information and elaborated where noted. And all the while I was compiling a list of further changes to make.
The first draft is done. And all that means is that I am now free to start on the second draft. But I am pleased -- and proud that I got it done.
Tomorrow I will be gone for the day, taking a hike around what has to be one of the most beautiful lakes in the world. If I'm not too tired tomorrow night, I will celebrate the first of September by diving into Adjacent Possibilities. All this month I have been jotting ideas for that story. I have a new opening in mind and I want to see if it'll work. I've been following a wonderful series of posts on ethics that have given me ideas for one of the characters. The book's philosophers focus on ethics and beliefs, you see.
So I will enter September actively editing two novels. The third? It haunts me. I wish I could accomplish more, but even five or six straight hours of work can't get me through enough pages: sometimes ten, sometimes twenty, sometimes two.
I am very tired, so I will have to add word count tomorrow.
And tomorrow I will celebrate. Tonight I will sleep!
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Will I Meet My Goal By Midnight, 31 August?
I'm ending up down to the wire on this. I promised myself 70,000 words, one round of editing, and a whole-draft revision in one month.
I need more discipline. I have spent two days now trying to skim -- not read, but skim -- my way through the story to find all the notes for elaboration or insertion and get them worked out. Instead, I find one, work on it, and proceed to edit and rewrite around it rather than move on.
Thus I have a first draft that is roughly complete, but has gotten its first round of editing in chunks. Not sensible.
To be fair to myself, there have been an unanticipated abundance of interruptions.But then, isn't that one of life's most important and ironic lessons -- always plan for the unexpected.
I did better tonight, but am still only about one-third through the story. Tomorrow I will leave home, leave cats and people who distract me, and hole up to get this done. I must be able to say, truthfully, that I achieved my goal.
I am over the 70k goal, so I won't bother with word counts until I have the draft complete.
I need more discipline. I have spent two days now trying to skim -- not read, but skim -- my way through the story to find all the notes for elaboration or insertion and get them worked out. Instead, I find one, work on it, and proceed to edit and rewrite around it rather than move on.
Thus I have a first draft that is roughly complete, but has gotten its first round of editing in chunks. Not sensible.
To be fair to myself, there have been an unanticipated abundance of interruptions.But then, isn't that one of life's most important and ironic lessons -- always plan for the unexpected.
I did better tonight, but am still only about one-third through the story. Tomorrow I will leave home, leave cats and people who distract me, and hole up to get this done. I must be able to say, truthfully, that I achieved my goal.
I am over the 70k goal, so I won't bother with word counts until I have the draft complete.
Monday, August 29, 2011
What Makes A Real Character?
What makes a 'real' character?
I read many posts on the topic. They seem to involve check lists, formulas you can plug in and hey, presto, you have a three dimensional, well rounded, believable, likable (even the bad-guys) character.
I know it can not, does not work that way. No formula can replace authenticity. But how do you create authenticity?
Writing is a reflection of reality. It is also a simplification. We want a story to have a clear arc from beginning to end. We want to see how things have changed. Real-life people don't often change much. Lottery winners are a good example. Sudden wealth alters their lives for a short while, then they settle back into old habits. But in stories we expect our lead characters to change. We want the exceptional, not the normal.
Each genre has its own expectations of how real a character must be. Much as I love cozy mysteries, soft science fiction, and fantasy, the characters tend to be flat. This doesn't mean we don't like them, or loathe them, only that we usually know right up front if they are the good guys or the bad guys. No grey areas. We learn a few quirks and we're done. In a series it gets complicated. The author has to keep adding traits and life-history, leaving us to wonder why we didn't know about them earlier on. Literary fiction is more like life. We can see the complexities of human nature more realistically portrayed.
When you step back and think about a day -- even an hour in your life, how many fleeting moods, random thoughts, odd memories, half-completed actions are there? Far too many to ever account for. But they reflect the prism of your personality.
I want my characters to have those facets.
No one is without moments of weakness, and no one is always weak. No one speaks uniformly good or ill or anyone or anything, unless they are speaking from hate or prejudice.
Normal people like and dislike aspects of people and life. A real teacher will complain of annoying students while also glorying in the good ones. My characters should be real enough to do the same.
What's important is that behind the specific attributes of a character, we can clearly see their core nature. Speaking ill of a bad person is consistent with a 'good' character. If they find they made a bad judgement they will try to rectify it. But they will still make occasional bad judgements. We all do.
To label a character good or bad, then assign a few traits or habits to flesh them out doesn't create a person, only a stereotype with garnish. But give that character too much reality, and the reader might become confused.
So, let the reader know how you feel about the character. Do you like them? Why? Choose a few aspects of their nature to focus on. Don't be afraid to show them as inconsistent. When you do, though, be sure to refocus on why that seems inconsistent -- get back to the core.
An example: if my enthusiastic teacher dislikes a student, that seems inconsistent. But if she says the student is a trouble maker, then we understand that it's the student who's the problem, not the teacher. She's a real person, just like you and me, one who reacts to stimuli, and not an inert mass of attributes selected from a check list.
Real characters, like real people, are complex. As a writer, we have to give a sense of that complexity in a simplified form. Not an easy task.
I read many posts on the topic. They seem to involve check lists, formulas you can plug in and hey, presto, you have a three dimensional, well rounded, believable, likable (even the bad-guys) character.
I know it can not, does not work that way. No formula can replace authenticity. But how do you create authenticity?
Writing is a reflection of reality. It is also a simplification. We want a story to have a clear arc from beginning to end. We want to see how things have changed. Real-life people don't often change much. Lottery winners are a good example. Sudden wealth alters their lives for a short while, then they settle back into old habits. But in stories we expect our lead characters to change. We want the exceptional, not the normal.
Each genre has its own expectations of how real a character must be. Much as I love cozy mysteries, soft science fiction, and fantasy, the characters tend to be flat. This doesn't mean we don't like them, or loathe them, only that we usually know right up front if they are the good guys or the bad guys. No grey areas. We learn a few quirks and we're done. In a series it gets complicated. The author has to keep adding traits and life-history, leaving us to wonder why we didn't know about them earlier on. Literary fiction is more like life. We can see the complexities of human nature more realistically portrayed.
When you step back and think about a day -- even an hour in your life, how many fleeting moods, random thoughts, odd memories, half-completed actions are there? Far too many to ever account for. But they reflect the prism of your personality.
I want my characters to have those facets.
No one is without moments of weakness, and no one is always weak. No one speaks uniformly good or ill or anyone or anything, unless they are speaking from hate or prejudice.
Normal people like and dislike aspects of people and life. A real teacher will complain of annoying students while also glorying in the good ones. My characters should be real enough to do the same.
What's important is that behind the specific attributes of a character, we can clearly see their core nature. Speaking ill of a bad person is consistent with a 'good' character. If they find they made a bad judgement they will try to rectify it. But they will still make occasional bad judgements. We all do.
To label a character good or bad, then assign a few traits or habits to flesh them out doesn't create a person, only a stereotype with garnish. But give that character too much reality, and the reader might become confused.
So, let the reader know how you feel about the character. Do you like them? Why? Choose a few aspects of their nature to focus on. Don't be afraid to show them as inconsistent. When you do, though, be sure to refocus on why that seems inconsistent -- get back to the core.
An example: if my enthusiastic teacher dislikes a student, that seems inconsistent. But if she says the student is a trouble maker, then we understand that it's the student who's the problem, not the teacher. She's a real person, just like you and me, one who reacts to stimuli, and not an inert mass of attributes selected from a check list.
Real characters, like real people, are complex. As a writer, we have to give a sense of that complexity in a simplified form. Not an easy task.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Researching a Novel
There always comes a point where I have to cope with all the "insert here" comments. In Adjacent Possibilities, that was, and still is, working in the philosophy that is integral to the characters' world views, in a palatable form for readers.
Tonight I've been working on the chemistry aspects of the Sooty story.
Sooty is a creature from another dimension. He cannot live on the naturally occurring elements we have. His world is more like the neutron soup of our just-post-Big Bang. He needs to combine and break apart atoms to simulate the energies he's familiar with. It has to be a mix of elements, as each one has a unique 'flavour' that helps sustain him, much like the variety of nutrients we need in our bodies to function, including tiny traces of metals.
Hey, it's the distinctly science fiction aspect of the story. I classify Sooty as speculative, though, as the science is adjunct to, and not the main purpose of the tale.
Anyways, I've been reabsorbing what chemistry I knew, and much that I've forgotten, and then making my own use of it to suit my goals (apologies to real chemists). But it took many hours to get even the limited amount of factual information I required into story form.
Next is to go through for character consistency. The rereading that accompanied inserting chemistry revealed several major flaws. If Anna and Sooty manipulate her best friend, Tai's mind, I see that Anna has to tell Tai the truth eventually. How would I react if I found my best friend had controlled my thoughts? How would you?
I've got ideas jotted down, and hopefully tomorrow will get them into the story, along with other omissions.
So, mostly revising, or editing, or whatever you call it when you are sticking in the bits you avoided in the creation stage. But I have gotten two thousand more words in over the last two nights. Whee!
I will declare the first draft complete when I eliminate all the "insert here" or "expand this" notes. Of which there are far, far too many.
Tonight I've been working on the chemistry aspects of the Sooty story.
Sooty is a creature from another dimension. He cannot live on the naturally occurring elements we have. His world is more like the neutron soup of our just-post-Big Bang. He needs to combine and break apart atoms to simulate the energies he's familiar with. It has to be a mix of elements, as each one has a unique 'flavour' that helps sustain him, much like the variety of nutrients we need in our bodies to function, including tiny traces of metals.
Hey, it's the distinctly science fiction aspect of the story. I classify Sooty as speculative, though, as the science is adjunct to, and not the main purpose of the tale.
Anyways, I've been reabsorbing what chemistry I knew, and much that I've forgotten, and then making my own use of it to suit my goals (apologies to real chemists). But it took many hours to get even the limited amount of factual information I required into story form.
Next is to go through for character consistency. The rereading that accompanied inserting chemistry revealed several major flaws. If Anna and Sooty manipulate her best friend, Tai's mind, I see that Anna has to tell Tai the truth eventually. How would I react if I found my best friend had controlled my thoughts? How would you?
I've got ideas jotted down, and hopefully tomorrow will get them into the story, along with other omissions.
So, mostly revising, or editing, or whatever you call it when you are sticking in the bits you avoided in the creation stage. But I have gotten two thousand more words in over the last two nights. Whee!
I will declare the first draft complete when I eliminate all the "insert here" or "expand this" notes. Of which there are far, far too many.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Humor For Sooty (and Chemistry)
Gotta love these. Lolcats has been running a series of Chemistry Cat jokes, and now Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal gets in on the act.
Chemistry is part of Sooty's story, you see. Again, I find synchronicity. When I work on Adjacent Possibilities, the world is full of philosophy, and when I work on Sooty, chemistry.
Of course, I know it's only that I notice these things because I'm thinking about them, but even that is good. It means I'm seeing things I wouldn't have noticed before.
Wonderful!
(sorry about the overlap, but using a smaller size-option made this one unreadable)
Chemistry is part of Sooty's story, you see. Again, I find synchronicity. When I work on Adjacent Possibilities, the world is full of philosophy, and when I work on Sooty, chemistry.
Of course, I know it's only that I notice these things because I'm thinking about them, but even that is good. It means I'm seeing things I wouldn't have noticed before.
Wonderful!
(sorry about the overlap, but using a smaller size-option made this one unreadable)
Update 23 Oct, 2011 I was just going over old posts and saw this image had vanished. I can't get it to reload, so here's the direct link to the comic from its site's archives:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2349
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Sooty's Parts Are United
I look at how many hours I put in today on Sooty ( about 7, not including breaks. Actual working time), and then I see I wrote 3 words less than yesterday. I am appalled. How could I have worked so long, with such concentration, and achieved so little?
I have to remind myself what I did in those hours today. Fiddly stuff. Little things that started simple. 'Expand on this' notes in the text, or 'add this bit here' that necessitated writing new scenes, then finding they belonged better elsewhere, then massive rounds of copy-paste as I rearranged bits of what I'd just written into several different spots in the story.
Lots of back and forth comparing what had been said in various places and adjusting for consistency.
Structure. Continuity. Lots and lots of character and relationship consistency. All essential, and all most dreadfully fiddly.
The middle is found. It is now in outline and chunks-of-scenes form, but the story has its structure from start to finish.
Along with writing that bridge, I also have to do the necessary research on chemistry, and get the results inserted where they belong. Way too many 'look this up' notes in the story.
I am, however, pleased with what I got done today, and will focus on that for a few hours, rather than on what's left to do before the first draft is completed.
Hurrah!
Update with even more hurrah!
I discovered that there was a big chunk of text that had been copied, but not deleted. I hate it when I do that. But I forgot to take that into account when I wrote up yesterday's total writing count. The chunk came to 1811 words. So I actually wrote 4817 words yesterday, not 3006.
Whew. That is much more in keeping with all the writing I felt I had done.
Current total word count is correct, only the daily allotment was wrong -- and is now revised.
I have to remind myself what I did in those hours today. Fiddly stuff. Little things that started simple. 'Expand on this' notes in the text, or 'add this bit here' that necessitated writing new scenes, then finding they belonged better elsewhere, then massive rounds of copy-paste as I rearranged bits of what I'd just written into several different spots in the story.
Lots of back and forth comparing what had been said in various places and adjusting for consistency.
Structure. Continuity. Lots and lots of character and relationship consistency. All essential, and all most dreadfully fiddly.
The middle is found. It is now in outline and chunks-of-scenes form, but the story has its structure from start to finish.
Along with writing that bridge, I also have to do the necessary research on chemistry, and get the results inserted where they belong. Way too many 'look this up' notes in the story.
I am, however, pleased with what I got done today, and will focus on that for a few hours, rather than on what's left to do before the first draft is completed.
Hurrah!
Update with even more hurrah!
I discovered that there was a big chunk of text that had been copied, but not deleted. I hate it when I do that. But I forgot to take that into account when I wrote up yesterday's total writing count. The chunk came to 1811 words. So I actually wrote 4817 words yesterday, not 3006.
Whew. That is much more in keeping with all the writing I felt I had done.
Current total word count is correct, only the daily allotment was wrong -- and is now revised.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Most People Are Good Drivers
We all laugh when we read studies saying that most people rate themselves as above average in some category. Intelligence, thoughtfulness, honesty, and driving.
Driving home this morning I realized something. Most people *are* good drivers. Maybe not super-courteous, or following speed limits, but they do stay in their lanes, they don't cut out in front of you (except the twerp who did that to me last fall, drat her), and they stop at stop signs.
Think about it. We rely on people following the basic rules. When someone turns left in front of you and you have the right of way, why are you angry? Because that's abnormal. Not just that it's illegal, but that you expect them to follow the rules.
We assume that people will drive respectfully. Sure, we look both ways even when the light is green -- we know we can't trust everyone to be alert or rational. But we can assume they will be.
It doesn't require any particular religion, or any religion at all. It has nothing to do with race, or age, or gender. Most people don't steal. Most people don't lie -- excluding social lies, or course. Most people are kind most of the time.
We notice the exceptions.
We need to remind ourselves just why we notice bad behavior.
We notice it because most people are good drivers, of cars and in life.
And I thank you all.
Driving home this morning I realized something. Most people *are* good drivers. Maybe not super-courteous, or following speed limits, but they do stay in their lanes, they don't cut out in front of you (except the twerp who did that to me last fall, drat her), and they stop at stop signs.
Think about it. We rely on people following the basic rules. When someone turns left in front of you and you have the right of way, why are you angry? Because that's abnormal. Not just that it's illegal, but that you expect them to follow the rules.
We assume that people will drive respectfully. Sure, we look both ways even when the light is green -- we know we can't trust everyone to be alert or rational. But we can assume they will be.
It doesn't require any particular religion, or any religion at all. It has nothing to do with race, or age, or gender. Most people don't steal. Most people don't lie -- excluding social lies, or course. Most people are kind most of the time.
We notice the exceptions.
We need to remind ourselves just why we notice bad behavior.
We notice it because most people are good drivers, of cars and in life.
And I thank you all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)