You might remember my discussion of bio lab in my last post. About the time my prof mentioned you need to read a lot of lab reports to know what you like, she also mentioned you need to read a lot of reports to learn something else: What's been done.
When doing a write up, you need to acknowledge what's been done before. If you don't keep track of what's been done around your subject, your research could end up looking totally derivative and useless.
It's sort of the same thing with books. Sometimes the same idea occurs to three people at the same time (I've heard of it), but if you never read, you'll never know it's been done before or how to make your book original in comparison.
Books are good. Books are fun. Books are context.
Go forth and read!
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Monday, February 7, 2011
You've Got To Look For What You Like
Once upon a time, I sat in a Bio Lab where the prof assigned us a pair of articles and asked for our critiques. After a while, she explained that part of the point was for us to get used to looking at reports objectively, since we'd have to write them later. Then she said, "When you read things, you get a sense of what you like to see. Then you can do that."
That's when I had one of those *ding* moments. Like a little light bulb over my head.
It was like rehearing all of those things that writing sites and books always say all over again:
What have you been reading lately? What books have taught you about writing?
That's when I had one of those *ding* moments. Like a little light bulb over my head.
It was like rehearing all of those things that writing sites and books always say all over again:
- Write what you'd like to read.
- Study published books. See how they're put together and learn from it.
- Remember what made you like reading that book, and try to absorb that awesome.
What have you been reading lately? What books have taught you about writing?
Monday, January 24, 2011
That Time At The Place With The Stuff
Because I love xkcd so much, I'm going to open with this.
Human beings, when they're talking to people they know pretty well, have inside jokes. They make references to past experiences and conversations. Interesting characters will do this as well.
Don't believe me? Watch this clip from Love Actuallybetween 5:42 and 6:00.
Now, come on, isn't that an absolutely fabulous opening?
In that opener, we get a sense of who each guy is and just how well they know each other. Because they've got these shared experiences they can reference talking to each other.
Inside jokes -- so long as they're explained enough that one knows they're inside jokes -- can be a great way of explaining just how long characters have known each other, how well they know each other, and -- depending on the joke -- can provide hints to back story that might be apparent later.
Useful, no?
So, how about those zebras?
Do you like inside jokes? Do your characters tell them? How do you feel about character's rehashing shared experiences and telling inside jokes?
Human beings, when they're talking to people they know pretty well, have inside jokes. They make references to past experiences and conversations. Interesting characters will do this as well.
Don't believe me? Watch this clip from Love Actuallybetween 5:42 and 6:00.
Now, come on, isn't that an absolutely fabulous opening?
In that opener, we get a sense of who each guy is and just how well they know each other. Because they've got these shared experiences they can reference talking to each other.
Inside jokes -- so long as they're explained enough that one knows they're inside jokes -- can be a great way of explaining just how long characters have known each other, how well they know each other, and -- depending on the joke -- can provide hints to back story that might be apparent later.
Useful, no?
So, how about those zebras?
Do you like inside jokes? Do your characters tell them? How do you feel about character's rehashing shared experiences and telling inside jokes?
Friday, January 21, 2011
Things You Don't Want Your Readers Doing (No Pun Intended)
Anyone here spend time on xkcd? If yes, high fives all around. And now, for your viewing pleasure....
Now, how is this vaguely related to anything I've ever said or done in the past on this blog (aside from the fact that it vaguely amused me)?
If you guessed writing, you get another high five.
Have you ever read a book and thought, "Okay, I now have officially no idea what the turducken is going on"? Now, if you were anything like, well, the vast majority of the kids I knew in high school, unless the book was for a class, you closed the book and, when asked about it, said "That thing's incomprehensible." And, heck, maybe even if the book was for a class, you did that.
Okay, most people give a book more than one shot. So, even if sometimes something happens and you're confused, you keep reading, because you give the author the benefit of the doubt. Somehow, some way, you tell yourself, this will all get cleared up.
Because that's the deal writers make with readers. Readers will read what we write. What we write will make sense. I'm not even talking about plot or character arcs or any of that, at the moment (though those things should definitely make sense); I'm talking about writing. The words you use.
When you put words on paper in a particular order, they should, in the end, create a sentence that makes sense. And those sentences should result in a paragraph that makes sense. And hopefully those paragraphs will... well, you know the rest.
We've all been there. You read that sentence over and think, "What was I thinking when I wrote this? Honestly, how many Cokes did I down that night? Can you even do that in English?" And, let's face it, sometimes the answer is, no, no you can't do that in English.
That's why we edit. Because we are nice authors, and we don't want our readers walking into walls, tripping on stairs, or falling into manholes as they stumble around wondering, "Seriously, what was that supposed to mean?"
Have you ever been there? Has this ever happened to you? Do you ever feel like writing you're looking at, yours or other people's, just doesn't make sense in English?
Now, how is this vaguely related to anything I've ever said or done in the past on this blog (aside from the fact that it vaguely amused me)?
If you guessed writing, you get another high five.
Have you ever read a book and thought, "Okay, I now have officially no idea what the turducken is going on"? Now, if you were anything like, well, the vast majority of the kids I knew in high school, unless the book was for a class, you closed the book and, when asked about it, said "That thing's incomprehensible." And, heck, maybe even if the book was for a class, you did that.
Okay, most people give a book more than one shot. So, even if sometimes something happens and you're confused, you keep reading, because you give the author the benefit of the doubt. Somehow, some way, you tell yourself, this will all get cleared up.
Because that's the deal writers make with readers. Readers will read what we write. What we write will make sense. I'm not even talking about plot or character arcs or any of that, at the moment (though those things should definitely make sense); I'm talking about writing. The words you use.
When you put words on paper in a particular order, they should, in the end, create a sentence that makes sense. And those sentences should result in a paragraph that makes sense. And hopefully those paragraphs will... well, you know the rest.
We've all been there. You read that sentence over and think, "What was I thinking when I wrote this? Honestly, how many Cokes did I down that night? Can you even do that in English?" And, let's face it, sometimes the answer is, no, no you can't do that in English.
That's why we edit. Because we are nice authors, and we don't want our readers walking into walls, tripping on stairs, or falling into manholes as they stumble around wondering, "Seriously, what was that supposed to mean?"
Have you ever been there? Has this ever happened to you? Do you ever feel like writing you're looking at, yours or other people's, just doesn't make sense in English?
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
If You Can't Say Something Nice...
Once upon a time, I was at a high school theater festival. In between shows, I got to chatting with someone from another school. We get to talking about some of what we'd seen that morning, and he asked about a certain show. I said what I thought: "I thought it started out strong, and I liked the premise, though I thought it got a little ridiculous towards the end. A bit over the top." The guy nodded thoughtfully and said, "I'll tell my director."
Face, meet Palm. You two can be friends.
Yep, I was talking to a cast member. (In my defense, people look different from more than 30 feet away. I just didn't recognize him.) (By the by, dude, if you're reading this, I really do apologize for that.)
While I didn't say the meanest things I'd ever said about a show, I know I didn't couch them the way I might have if I'd known I spoke to someone who worked on the production. After all, you put your heart and soul (or at least a hecca ton of sweat and tears -- and possibly a little blood) into a show, if someone criticizes it, it's gonna hurt.
What's this got to do with writing? I've been seeing a lot of talk on the blogosphere lately about reviews and commenting on books on blogs.
Talking about books on blogs is like being me in that auditorium. As far as you know, you are always talking to that guy from the show. Agents, editors, authors, friends of any of the above could be reading your blog. And, I know, people always say that you can't talk what people say about your work to heart -- and I've definitely a proponent of not taking things to heart -- but that's no reason not to be polite at the least.
As Ratatouille says "We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so."
So, while it might be fun to go making fun of people, and while, in the privacy of my own head/home/secret underground cave, I might rage against the heinousness of whatever book I just read, I try to keep that stuff off the blog.
Because I learned that lesson in high school: Everything you're looking at it something someone spent a lot of time and effort on, and yes, sometimes they are standing there, asking what you think of it.
How do you feel about publishing reviews on the internet? Do you put them on your sites? Good and bad alike?
How do you feel when you read a negative review on a blog, even of work that is not personally connected to you?
Face, meet Palm. You two can be friends.
Yep, I was talking to a cast member. (In my defense, people look different from more than 30 feet away. I just didn't recognize him.) (By the by, dude, if you're reading this, I really do apologize for that.)
While I didn't say the meanest things I'd ever said about a show, I know I didn't couch them the way I might have if I'd known I spoke to someone who worked on the production. After all, you put your heart and soul (or at least a hecca ton of sweat and tears -- and possibly a little blood) into a show, if someone criticizes it, it's gonna hurt.
What's this got to do with writing? I've been seeing a lot of talk on the blogosphere lately about reviews and commenting on books on blogs.
Talking about books on blogs is like being me in that auditorium. As far as you know, you are always talking to that guy from the show. Agents, editors, authors, friends of any of the above could be reading your blog. And, I know, people always say that you can't talk what people say about your work to heart -- and I've definitely a proponent of not taking things to heart -- but that's no reason not to be polite at the least.
As Ratatouille says "We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so."
So, while it might be fun to go making fun of people, and while, in the privacy of my own head/home/secret underground cave, I might rage against the heinousness of whatever book I just read, I try to keep that stuff off the blog.
Because I learned that lesson in high school: Everything you're looking at it something someone spent a lot of time and effort on, and yes, sometimes they are standing there, asking what you think of it.
How do you feel about publishing reviews on the internet? Do you put them on your sites? Good and bad alike?
How do you feel when you read a negative review on a blog, even of work that is not personally connected to you?
Monday, January 17, 2011
Kids Are Different
(WARNING: Long post. For abbreviated version, skip down to the paragraph starting with the words "Okay, now that I've gone on.")
Recently, through the power of Netflix streaming, I rewatched the movie Quest for Camelot, which a voice in the back of my mind reminded me I'd once seen at a friends house at least a decade ago. Having rewatched it, I decided that aside from two nice songs, it's only got two real strong points (note: the point of this post is, actually, not to knock the movie).
Firstly, I felt that Warner Bros.'s inclusion a disabled character was, at one point, a step towards acknowledging that there are disabled people in America and saying, "Yes, even disabled people can help save their kingdom from evil." For once, we see a film breaking out of the more common Disney paradigm that the world can only be saved by ridiculously good looking, perfectly abled people (who often have bonus powers from somewhere).
Secondly, Garrett now faced some difficulties the other characters didn't (such as having to flee from a dragon -- which he couldn't see -- by jumping on rocks -- which he couldn't see -- across a pit of lava -- which he couldn't see. Thank goodness for assist birds). This made his struggles as a character all the more engaging. To be blunt,in terms of the story, it rather raised the ante on everything that he had to do. He had a harder time than the female lead, because she could see what she needed to do. Also, his experiences gave him the skills he needs to help save the kingdom. Helpful, that.
Thirdly, his experience of how he'd been treated when he lost his sight shaped his view of himself, her family, and their homeland. These factors all went into the motivations that moved him through the story and escalated the conflict. Garrett manages to both make strong points as to why he shouldn't be defined by his blindness and simultaneously define himself by it. (Oh, character angst.)
Okay, now that I've gone on and on about why Garret is definitely my favorite part of that movie, I'll circle back to my thesis. Namely, the rarity of disabled characters in books and movies. When they're included, it's generally in a "disability genre" and the books focus on being disabled instead of treating disabled characters like the abled ones.
Generally speaking, Disney -- the paragon of "kid appropriate" -- doesn't include things that it thinks will scar little kids, such as scars. Ever notice how the only characters in Disney films that maintain serious injuries throughout a flick are the bad guys?
If 18-20% of Americans are disabled, that would suggest that most kids, if they aren't disabled themselves, know or are related to a person with a disability. So would it really be traumatizing to see a disabled character in a book or movie treated the same as the other characters?
My previous works have not included a large number of disabled characters; however, I do have on character in my head with a disability, and her day will come. Disabilities are a fact of life, even in modern times, and I think it might be nice if books and movies written for kids reflected that.
What do you think? How do you feel about disabled characters in books and movies for kids? Have you ever written a disabled character?
** The title for this post derives from the song "Kids are Different," which is the theme song for the group Kids on the Block, a puppet troupe that teaches children about living with disabilities.
Recently, through the power of Netflix streaming, I rewatched the movie Quest for Camelot, which a voice in the back of my mind reminded me I'd once seen at a friends house at least a decade ago. Having rewatched it, I decided that aside from two nice songs, it's only got two real strong points (note: the point of this post is, actually, not to knock the movie).
- Cary Elwes voicing the leading guy, because, you know, he's Cary Elwes, and his voice ROCKS.
- Garrett (as voice by Cary Elwes) is blind.
Firstly, I felt that Warner Bros.'s inclusion a disabled character was, at one point, a step towards acknowledging that there are disabled people in America and saying, "Yes, even disabled people can help save their kingdom from evil." For once, we see a film breaking out of the more common Disney paradigm that the world can only be saved by ridiculously good looking, perfectly abled people (who often have bonus powers from somewhere).
Secondly, Garrett now faced some difficulties the other characters didn't (such as having to flee from a dragon -- which he couldn't see -- by jumping on rocks -- which he couldn't see -- across a pit of lava -- which he couldn't see. Thank goodness for assist birds). This made his struggles as a character all the more engaging. To be blunt,in terms of the story, it rather raised the ante on everything that he had to do. He had a harder time than the female lead, because she could see what she needed to do. Also, his experiences gave him the skills he needs to help save the kingdom. Helpful, that.
Thirdly, his experience of how he'd been treated when he lost his sight shaped his view of himself, her family, and their homeland. These factors all went into the motivations that moved him through the story and escalated the conflict. Garrett manages to both make strong points as to why he shouldn't be defined by his blindness and simultaneously define himself by it. (Oh, character angst.)
Okay, now that I've gone on and on about why Garret is definitely my favorite part of that movie, I'll circle back to my thesis. Namely, the rarity of disabled characters in books and movies. When they're included, it's generally in a "disability genre" and the books focus on being disabled instead of treating disabled characters like the abled ones.
Generally speaking, Disney -- the paragon of "kid appropriate" -- doesn't include things that it thinks will scar little kids, such as scars. Ever notice how the only characters in Disney films that maintain serious injuries throughout a flick are the bad guys?
- Ex: Scar has a scar for all of Lion King.
- Ex: Dorie's scars from the jelly fish attack only last on scene in Finding Nemo.
- Ex: Mulan. Every good guy in the movie gets seriously beat up on. Does it show? Nope. They bruise once then are magically restored. They can even regrow teeth.
- Exception: In Finding Nemo, Nemo has a bad fin, as does Gill. However, these aspects define the characters. They are not incidental aspects. They are essential aspects.
- Exception: The Hunchback of Notre Dame has a hunchbacked MC. On the other hand, that's the primary thing we learn about his character, and he still loses the girl to an abled, and ridiculously good looking (read: Disney ideal) supporting male.
If 18-20% of Americans are disabled, that would suggest that most kids, if they aren't disabled themselves, know or are related to a person with a disability. So would it really be traumatizing to see a disabled character in a book or movie treated the same as the other characters?
My previous works have not included a large number of disabled characters; however, I do have on character in my head with a disability, and her day will come. Disabilities are a fact of life, even in modern times, and I think it might be nice if books and movies written for kids reflected that.
What do you think? How do you feel about disabled characters in books and movies for kids? Have you ever written a disabled character?
** The title for this post derives from the song "Kids are Different," which is the theme song for the group Kids on the Block, a puppet troupe that teaches children about living with disabilities.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Sorry, My English Not So Good
In a continuation from my previous post on non-English wording, I'm moving on to something vaguely related: bad English. I don't mean cussing and "bad words." I mean a character just trying to speak English and not really succeeding.
My MC from my NaNo project is English Second Language (more like fourth language, but it's the first Earth language, so, sure, ESL), and after I thought about it, I concluded the English I had her speaking might just have been too good.
After all, no matter how good you are at picking up languages, you're probably never going to be spotless. You'll likely have some sort of accent or some verbal tick you use to fill time while you speak. I know my French can get pretty atrocious in the conjugation department if I don't think too hard, and I spent years on that. I know some people who are whizzes at language, and even they aren't flawless. So, McKinley, much as I love her, can't speak perfect English. Certainly not idiomatic English.
This is something I've chosen to embrace. I've started trying to look out for innocent mistakes one can make with English and with English expressions. My favorite, mined from my Chinese teacher, for incessantly: non-stoppingly. Love it.
My question is, how annoying can it get reading a character with rocky English. She's not bad, of course, going to an American school, but I'm wondering how far I can push this characteristic before someone decides to throw the book against the wall and say, "To heck with this. I'm reading something where people speak g.d. English." Like those days when you had to read Huckleberry Finn in English class and you had to pause and think about what he was really trying to say there.
How do you feel about characters with rocky English? Do they annoy you? Amuse you? Confuse you? Have you ever written a character whose English always comprehensible? How hard would you find that?
My MC from my NaNo project is English Second Language (more like fourth language, but it's the first Earth language, so, sure, ESL), and after I thought about it, I concluded the English I had her speaking might just have been too good.
After all, no matter how good you are at picking up languages, you're probably never going to be spotless. You'll likely have some sort of accent or some verbal tick you use to fill time while you speak. I know my French can get pretty atrocious in the conjugation department if I don't think too hard, and I spent years on that. I know some people who are whizzes at language, and even they aren't flawless. So, McKinley, much as I love her, can't speak perfect English. Certainly not idiomatic English.
This is something I've chosen to embrace. I've started trying to look out for innocent mistakes one can make with English and with English expressions. My favorite, mined from my Chinese teacher, for incessantly: non-stoppingly. Love it.
My question is, how annoying can it get reading a character with rocky English. She's not bad, of course, going to an American school, but I'm wondering how far I can push this characteristic before someone decides to throw the book against the wall and say, "To heck with this. I'm reading something where people speak g.d. English." Like those days when you had to read Huckleberry Finn in English class and you had to pause and think about what he was really trying to say there.
How do you feel about characters with rocky English? Do they annoy you? Amuse you? Confuse you? Have you ever written a character whose English always comprehensible? How hard would you find that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
