Woeful
Scribe
Nothing witty here
Posts: 206
|
Post by Woeful on Jun 19, 2012 9:21:35 GMT -5
I agree that beginnings are vital. Whatever you write has to grab the reader's attention in the first few pages, or your story gets tossed aside. Writing romantic fiction especially if it has an erotic overtone, the rule of thumb is that the main characters have to meet in the first 15 pages of a 300 page book. Which tells me that the introduction of the book is really the introduction of those two characters and their relationship.
The ending is important but is not as critical. My view is that its my story. I want the ending to be cool and well thought out, but you as the reader don't have to like the ending. You still read the story.
But, I am finding that's it much harder to end the story than it was to begin. The ending does sort of write itself, I know what is going to happen, but getting to that place with my characters intact and giving the reader a feeling like the characters have grown through the experience has been a challenge. That and I like these guys and gals, I really don't want them to end.
As for style. I hate any book and feels like it wants to flex its literary muscle. Don't force me to a dictionary because of an obscure word. I am trying to learn about the setting and the character, I don't need a vocabulary lesson. If there is a character that has a particular style or character trait that would use spelling bee style words, then fine, but don't throw one out for the hell of it.
Just tell me who what where when and why I should care. Go to the next character.
|
|
|
Post by Sekot on Jun 19, 2012 9:25:36 GMT -5
My favorite beginnings usually begin with quotes from the universe the story is set in. It brings you into the world quickly by a quick twist of having written material within the material you are currently reading. That sets in my mind that the author has thoroughly fleshed out the background of the piece, that they've spent enough time in their world to come up with histories and culture, a - past- in the present you're about to read in. That, more than anything, draws me into a story. I don't think that can always work, though. I think that can only work in very select circumstances. I think Pete used it well in Wolves in the Dark. And essentially, Concerning Hobbits, is an expanded version of that. And I love that start (how can you not like it, Sekot!?). But any scene that starts with action at the front? Or even just where a quote would seem odd. I don't think it could work. Wait, intro to the Hobbits or Fellowship? I liked the intro to Hobbits, but that felt like an entirely different book than the LOTR trilogy. And I agree with this. I used to love starting with action scenes, but the more I wrote the less it worked and the more it began to fall apart. The thing that makes action sequences great is having the ability to care about one side or the other. You can't do that in an intro, its meaningless, unless you plan to kick a puppy to establish one side as EVIIILLLL. Frank Herbert is a good example. He had a few quotes before his chapters, but he also had this extensively created world built where these quotes came from, and the quotes themselves were less about the world and could easily be adapted to our current time. A beginning should answer the question "Why should I care?". A quote or action scene, to me, does not establish that very well.
|
|
|
Post by Kaez on Jun 19, 2012 9:43:32 GMT -5
Long meadering sentences right out of the gate just don't do it for me. I think that is my most common comment when I'm reviewing, especially where I'm actually judging. Have long, deeply metaphorical sentences with flowing imagery as much as you like. But don't start with one. I need to get 'warmed-up' with your style so to speak. That said, you also don't want to start things up in a -too- generic style lest it seem bland and uninteresting. This is why beginnings are so tricky.
|
|
Woeful
Scribe
Nothing witty here
Posts: 206
|
Post by Woeful on Jun 19, 2012 13:47:56 GMT -5
I am sure that I am looking at this wrong, but in all of the books I have ever read, I never put one down because the prose was to generic or bland for my taste.
I have stopped reading because I didn't like the story, or I didn't understand what's happening. I have stopped reading because I find myself lost and discover that I didn't care what happens. I stopped reading 30 Pieces of Silver because, it got so outlandish that it lost credibility (and the prose needed a better editor) but it wasn't because of blandness or generic style.
|
|
|
Post by James on Jun 19, 2012 14:57:36 GMT -5
Wait, intro to the Hobbits or Fellowship? I liked the intro to Hobbits, but that felt like an entirely different book than the LOTR trilogy. The prologue for Fellowship. Where Tolkien details the history of the Hobbits and the different kinds. I loved it. But, I do love history. I think an action scene can make you care. It doesn't have to be pulpy mindless action. Action scenes can show the personality, intelligence and values behind a character very well.
|
|
|
Post by Kaez on Jun 19, 2012 15:00:20 GMT -5
I am sure that I am looking at this wrong, but in all of the books I have ever read, I never put one down because the prose was to generic or bland for my taste. Not 'wrong', that's just how you do it. I -have- put them down for that reason.
|
|
|
Post by James on Jun 19, 2012 15:02:14 GMT -5
I am sure that I am looking at this wrong, but in all of the books I have ever read, I never put one down because the prose was to generic or bland for my taste. I've never put down a book because the style was too generic or bland. It's not usual for me to not finish a book, I even finished A Clash of Kings and I hated that book. But I do resent the book while reading it for a bland style, especially if the story is actually good. So if the beginning is written in such a generic style... then that's probably not a good thing, making me possibly resent a part of the book early on.
|
|
|
Post by Kaez on Jun 19, 2012 15:05:00 GMT -5
I am sure that I am looking at this wrong, but in all of the books I have ever read, I never put one down because the prose was to generic or bland for my taste. I've never put down a book because the style was too generic or bland. It's not usual for me to not finish a book, I even finished A Clash of Kings and I hated that book. But I do resent the book while reading it for a bland style, especially if the story is actually good. So if the beginning is written in such a generic style... then that's probably not a good thing, making me possibly resent a part of the book early on. Maybe it's Tolkien that did it to me, but over the past few years, I've never been satisfied if a book does nothing but tell a compelling story. I always feel like I need the -language- to do something compelling. I need to fee like something just as interesting is happening with the words in the book as with the characters in the story, if I'm going to -really- enjoy it.
|
|
|
Post by James on Jun 19, 2012 15:17:35 GMT -5
I've never put down a book because the style was too generic or bland. It's not usual for me to not finish a book, I even finished A Clash of Kings and I hated that book. But I do resent the book while reading it for a bland style, especially if the story is actually good. So if the beginning is written in such a generic style... then that's probably not a good thing, making me possibly resent a part of the book early on. Maybe it's Tolkien that did it to me, but over the past few years, I've never been satisfied if a book does nothing but tell a compelling story. I always feel like I need the -language- to do something compelling. I need to fee like something just as interesting is happening with the words in the book as with the characters in the story, if I'm going to -really- enjoy it. See, I haven't reached the stage of -needing- it. If the language is doing something compelling as well as the story, then fantastic. But I can get by with just some really good writing and a great story. The story, characters, etc are still the main component for me above the writing itself.
|
|
|
Post by James on Jun 24, 2012 22:54:14 GMT -5
Discussion #2 Sci-Fi v Fantasy Oh yes! The next discussion should hopefully be a bit of a heated one. The two heavyweights of speculative fiction, sci-fi and fantasy. But which one is better? Which one allows for more entertaining plots and interesting characters? Which one is better to write? Or indeed, harder to write. Get discussing.
|
|
|
Post by Injin on Jun 24, 2012 23:54:52 GMT -5
I've always felt fantasy gives more to character. When it comes to a civilization on a galactic scale, there seems to be little variety for some reason in the non-human characters, at least that is what I've gathered through reading experience, and most of them fall into trope categories. There are obvious exceptions to the rule, but I've always found fantasy filled with more diverse characters, even if the worlds are on a smaller scale.
|
|
|
Post by Matteo ((Taed)) on Jun 25, 2012 8:18:43 GMT -5
I've always felt fantasy gives more to character. When it comes to a civilization on a galactic scale, there seems to be little variety for some reason in the non-human characters, at least that is what I've gathered through reading experience, and most of them fall into trope categories. There are obvious exceptions to the rule, but I've always found fantasy filled with more diverse characters, even if the worlds are on a smaller scale. I'd argue that literally the exact opposite of that is usually the case. Fantasy books are way more likely to be all about the worldbuilding, whereas basically any quality sci-fi written after the 60s is heavily invested in introspective, post-modern character psychology. They're all about journeying into the mind and the self even as we journey forward into the future, and outward into the stars. Hell, even Star Wars, which is not a great example of what I'm describing, is way more interested in its characters and their interactions than in the universe they live in. The first movie only has the most barebones attempt at worldbuilding, and the scope is very narrow. Whereas most of the biggest names in fantasy are sweeping epics/exciting travel brochures. Think about how well you know and understand the Han Solo character (I would imagine pretty well), and now apply the same test to Frodo Baggins (he likes ..... rings?).
|
|
|
Post by Sekot on Jun 25, 2012 10:01:10 GMT -5
Mash them together into an unrecognizable mess.
Weird fiction!
|
|
|
Post by J.O.N ((Dragonwing)) on Jun 25, 2012 10:20:05 GMT -5
I've always felt fantasy gives more to character. When it comes to a civilization on a galactic scale, there seems to be little variety for some reason in the non-human characters, at least that is what I've gathered through reading experience, and most of them fall into trope categories. There are obvious exceptions to the rule, but I've always found fantasy filled with more diverse characters, even if the worlds are on a smaller scale. I'd argue that literally the exact opposite of that is usually the case. Fantasy books are way more likely to be all about the worldbuilding, whereas basically any quality sci-fi written after the 60s is heavily invested in introspective, post-modern character psychology. They're all about journeying into the mind and the self even as we journey forward into the future, and outward into the stars. Hell, even Star Wars, which is not a great example of what I'm describing, is way more interested in its characters and their interactions than in the universe they live in. The first movie only has the most barebones attempt at worldbuilding, and the scope is very narrow. Whereas most of the biggest names in fantasy are sweeping epics/exciting travel brochures. Think about how well you know and understand the Han Solo character (I would imagine pretty well), and now apply the same test to Frodo Baggins (he likes ..... rings?). I would argue that Sci-fi writers use their characters more to describe the setting. Though I'm more talking about writers like Larry Niven, I haven't had much experience with Sci-fi.
|
|
|
Post by Matteo ((Taed)) on Jun 25, 2012 10:34:14 GMT -5
Mash them together into an unrecognizable mess. Weird fiction! Something weird that I've noticed: when you mash together fantasy and sci-fi ... it's usually still sci-fi. Like, you can add magic and elves and stuff to a sci-fi story without compromising it overmuch, but put one spaceship into a fantasy story and suddenly all bets are off. That's just an observation, not any kind of argument. I just think it's interesting that the sci-fi aesthetic "gene" tends to dominate the fantasy gene more often than not.
|
|