PoV

pov.jpg

Something that occurred to me regarding my writing a couple weeks ago: one of the things I’m ‘encouraged’ to do by those folks who are reading and giving feedback on my stories is to reduce the number times I switch the point of view during the story.
What I mean is this: we meet the main character. We hang out with them for awhile. Then there’s a little side thing with another guy. Then back to the main character. Then back to second guy. Then main character. Then we meet a third guy…
… and that’s Chapter One.
And I realized why I do that. It’s entirely from running roleplaying games for so many years. I’m automatically cycling through all the main characters and trying to make sure that (a) I don’t ‘play’ with just one character for too long and (b) everyone gets a turn.
It’s generally a good thing in games. It doesn’t translate well in fiction.
It does WORK, but you need to structure it very clearly. It took me three or four passes on Hidden Things before I started to feel like I really had a strong pattern established for when the Point of View switched away from Calliope… and, like most of the book, I’d already unconsciously established the pattern in the second two-thirds of the book, and simply needed to reverse-apply it to the first third. (Here’s a hint: the camera only leaves her when she’s asleep.)
I’m beginning to think that eighty percent of the work during revisions lies in looking at the good patterns that developed later into the book, and trying to apply all that good stuff to those first five chapters where you were flailing madly at the keyboard like some sort of fox hunt brush beater, hoping a feral story would flush out and make a break into open territory where it could be gunned down in a proper, civilized fashion.

Reviewed

As Kate mentions here, the most recent anthology from Wicked Words finally hit the US shelves this week, and reviewers have been very friendly to the story we had in the book.
Very cool to be reviewed, positively OR negatively. Believe that’s a first for me.

Into the weekend!

A one sentence review of Mark Wahlburg’s “Shooter”:
“The fairy tale that redneck conservatives tell themselves when they want to believe that they could fix the government if it gets too corrupt… with the help of a good woman and a 30/30.”
Kate’s one-word review of the movie:
“ENUNCIATE.”

We’re out in Utah for the weekend — Kate’s one of the speakers/interviewees at a writer’s conference and I’m splitting my time between that and working on a book editing job in the (really) gorgeous two-story ski condo that the conference got for us. On a mountain lake a few miles from the winter Olympics ski site, free high-speed wifi, hot tub on the deck, roaring fire (that turns on with a switch!) and a bunch of DVDs left by the folks who own/sublet the place… not a whole lot to complain about for a short weekend away.

Oopses

Bohemian Word Werks – Writing blunders
Specifically, 20 of them, a lot of which I’m happy to say I already try to avoid.
My one guilty moment of head-hanging shame? Starting the story with someone waking up (or being woke up). Of three full-length stories, I’ve done that twice.

2 of 3

After almost five months SIXTEEN months without so much as a confirmation that they got the submission (the mag’s new editor has mentioned a number of times that the slush pile she inherited is “mammoth”), fishnetmag.com sent us back a glowing letter of acceptance for “The Scarf.”

Continue reading “2 of 3”

Oy.

My efforts at book revisions are hampered SOMEWHAT by the fact that, on my main computer at home, Word won’t let me add new words to the spellcheck dictionary.
Yes, seriously.

What a coinkydink

The Storytellers: Why Are Most Artists Liberal?

Hundreds of conservative non-fiction books are being published today, some of which become best-sellers. So if there was a lot of really great conservative fiction, some percentage of it would have found its way to publication.
And yet it hasn’t.
It’s almost as if you have to be a liberal to be a good artist. But that can’t be true, can it?
Well, it can. And it is. Here’s why.

I find particularly interesting the point made in which the author opines that a story needs to have (IMO: at least) two ‘human’ (which I read as ‘sympathetic’) sides in order to be a “Good” story. A one-sided story is a flawed one, and so forth. Interesting point — don’t know if it’s a useful/universal one.
Makes me (again) look askance at Hidden Things and wonder if I’m missing something there — but that might be me projecting one of my own rules — realistically, no sane person thinks of themselves as The Villain.. Then again, I think about some stories (the actually good Star Wars stories, for example) that focus on the hero’s quest and the inequivocably Rilly Rilly Bad Guy… and those stories don’t have two sympathetic sides, and I think Hmmm.
Hmm.