TheNextBigWriter Premium → A Different Kind of Feedback
Pages 1
Sometimes, like in a mystery, you want the clues to be present, but not obvious. So one very useful kind of feedback is when a reviewer doesn't catch them, or may even think that they should be taken out as unnecessary description. How many of you have been delighted when a reviewer's feedback indicates you've been successful at this?
Hi Rhiannon, it's not clear exactly what you mean. You mean an extra description or something that seems superfluous but is really important to the story? I guess I've had people wonder about a certain phrase or character who seems unimportant to the story but does play a role later on. Although I wonder if this is a positive. I kind've feel the reader should be kept guessing about some things but never purposely made to skip over important descriptions of characters.
Cobbler: I'm thinking of clues. Like a piece of glass put in a description of a scene, and later you find the murderer wears glasses. It's feedback if your beta readers don't notice how odd it was that there is glass there, or conversely, think you should take it out as being too much detail, not realizing there might be a covert reason for it being there.
The same thing can happpen with character points. The best thing is to make the point in question serve some immediate purpose, whether description or character. Or humor: John Dickson Carr wrote two farces about murder, one with Dr. Gideon Fell--=The Blind Barber=-- and one with Sir Henry Merrivale--=The Punch and Judy Murders=. (I had to look it up just now.) A lot of the HM stories have elements of farce, but this one runs from end to end.
They're both great stories.
The same thing can happpen with character points. The best thing is to make the point in question serve some immediate purpose, whether description or character. Or humor: John Dickson Carr wrote two farces about murder, one with Dr. Gideon Fell--=The Blind Barber=-- and one with Sir Henry Merrivale--=The Punch and Judy Murders=. (I had to look it up just now.) A lot of the HM stories have elements of farce, but this one runs from end to end.
They're both great stories.
Monty Python - Agatha Christie Sketch (Railway Timetables)
"How can anyone shoot himself and then hide the gun without first cancelling his reservation?"
The same thing can happpen with character points. The best thing is to make the point in question serve some immediate purpose, whether description or character. Or humor: John Dickson Carr wrote two farces about murder, one with Dr. Gideon Fell--=The Blind Barber=-- and one with Sir Henry Merrivale--=The Punch and Judy Murders=. (I had to look it up just now.) A lot of the HM stories have elements of farce, but this one runs from end to end.
They're both great stories.
njc: After you mentioned that the clue should be made to look like it serves some immediate purpose, I went back through my MS, and, to my delight, I did just that. And only one reviewer has spotted it and she thought it was just annoyingly thick detail. Character points are a great way to hide things. That is actually how Asimov did in in The Caves of Steel, and that is how I attempt to do it in the novel in question.
njc wrote:The same thing can happpen with character points. The best thing is to make the point in question serve some immediate purpose, whether description or character. Or humor: John Dickson Carr wrote two farces about murder, one with Dr. Gideon Fell--=The Blind Barber=-- and one with Sir Henry Merrivale--=The Punch and Judy Murders=. (I had to look it up just now.) A lot of the HM stories have elements of farce, but this one runs from end to end.
They're both great stories.
Monty Python - Agatha Christie Sketch (Railway Timetables)
"How can anyone shoot himself and then hide the gun without first cancelling his reservation?"
Charles: This is as hilarious as only Monty Python can do it.
Monty Python's typical humor involves the kind of stupidity that would cause its subject the sort of humiliation that leads the victim to search for the nearest beaker of cyanide. Where bureaucrats meet the public I sympathize, but in general I'd rather expose children to bloody violence than to Python. Once can only survive Python by a sense of superiority that requires total disconnection from the fate of others.
Monty Python's typical humor involves the kind of stupidity that would cause its subject the sort of humiliation that leads the victim to search for the nearest beaker of cyanide. Where bureaucrats meet the public I sympathize, but in general I'd rather expose children to bloody violence than to Python. Once can only survive Python by a sense of superiority that requires total disconnection from the fate of others.
Wow. This reminds me of Aristotle's theory of humor: that it always involves a sense of superiority.
You're lumping me in with Aristotle? Now I know I don't merit that!
I don't recall that part, though, and I'm split on it. Since humor about others means that one is judging them, or at least evaluating them, one can argue for the sense of superiority. But does it mean a permanent sense of superiority, or just a moment of privilege for being able to apply that judgement? And what happens when one laughs at oneself? Really laughs, as in "If you want to make God laugh, tell Him your plans?"
And how does that relate to puns? When one winces at a pun, what does one feel superior to--or inferior to?
Incorrigible Punster. Do Not Incorrige.
There is not much about the hamster
To stimulate the epigramster.
The essence of his simple story: he populates the laboratory
Leaving his offspring in the lurch,
Martyrs to medical research. But if he were as smart as people am
New York would be New Hamsterdam.
Does Nash celebrate our superiority to the hamster? Or is there something deeper and more subtle at work?
Monty Python's typical humor involves the kind of stupidity that would cause its subject the sort of humiliation that leads the victim to search for the nearest beaker of cyanide. Where bureaucrats meet the public I sympathize, but in general I'd rather expose children to bloody violence than to Python. Once can only survive Python by a sense of superiority that requires total disconnection from the fate of others.
I am thinking then that you use 'farce' in a pejorative sense. Farce/satire/parody of the stupid is pointless as it constitutes a kind of cruelty, and it can have no beneficial effect on the object of its humor. Satire of the 'smart', rich, and powerful is the point even if farce has a directionless quality that causes it to miss its target. Only the 'smart', rich, and powerful would either see the humor over themselves or be rightfully the object of scorn. Even if political satire, like Monty Python's Agatha Christie genre-literature parody, has a specialized purpose, those objects in the know, like mystery writers, can take the humor or be wholly just objects. However, what does it say when the satirical humor over President George W. Bush was often about his alleged stupidity was thought funny, but humor about President Barack Obama oh-so-smart Harvard-education accomplishments is not even created? So, if you mean farcical humor about the stupid and under-educated (and people had to fabricate that lie about W) is in poor taste, I agree, and people cowed into humorless submission about a man who has power and money on little personal merit is wrong, too.
Sometimes people are just funny regardless of so-called education, money, or power. Enjoy (or not at your discretion) the below link. Take care. Vern
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_3xvXy9eVM
PS: Edited to add second link for a different fan base to enjoy. Choose your humor.
Cobbler: I'm thinking of clues. Like a piece of glass put in a description of a scene, and later you find the murderer wears glasses. It's feedback if your beta readers don't notice how odd it was that there is glass there, or conversely, think you should take it out as being too much detail, not realizing there might be a covert reason for it being there.
I think you also have to consider that we are "beta readers" and looking for inconsistency and ways to help you improve something we know absolutely nothing about- because it is a work in progress.
When I read a published novel and see a lot of detail, I do assume it must be important (esp in mysteries- as I like to solve them before the protagonist- but that's me) When beta reviewing a manuscript- I don't know what is important and what isn't - that's up to the writer.
There's also the decision as to how far down do you want to come to a reader's level-- some readers are astute and will notice and albeit look for clues- others just want an easy beach book.
I had an art class in college and we were tasked with paining something socially conscious. I chose the slaughter of whales- in the foreground a I painted a large fin with blood red rivulets (which could have been blood, or could have been the sky reflecting on water- it was open to interpretation. The sky was painted as a sunset, ablaze and the clouds were in the shape of a bison head- but you had to work to see it. Not everyone in the class got it- so my painting instructor told me to make it more obvious- because my painting instructor was a total ass, I didn't and my grade suffered (one must suffer for their art- right?). Another art instructor (etching) saw me with it and was blown away by the bison in the sky.
So do we write for every idiot that wants to read our books? Or do we write to delight those readers that want to put in a little more effort for a bigger reward?
CJ
CJ: I like your question, "Do we write for every idiot that wants to read our books...Or do we write to delight those readers that want to put in a little more effort..." I write for readers who can appreciate my writing. If I wanted to write for the idiots, I'd probably want to co-author a book with James Patterson. Your story about the art instructor reminds me of a friend of mine who was in the College of Creative Studies at UCSB. She was told that her writing was lacking because it lacked sex scenes. She replied, "but I'm writing for kids." This to no avail. So her Parthian shot was a story where the protagonist, on the first page, said, "I undulated my voluptuous eleven year old body." She switched to English as a major.
And all I'm saying to beta readers is that I appreciate them, even when they miss something--as I deliberately make some things to be missed, and this shows success. And I came on to respond to one reviewer who, although I disagree with many of his opinions about when to put in details and when not to, had other valuable insights.
And beta readers can spot things that you don't. Kathy Reichs once had Tempe take off her clothes, plop into bed. She woke up, realized something was wrong, padded down the hall, saw what was amiss and called her colleagues who arrived forthwith. Were all male, and probably delighted. Did you notice that there was no mention of her putting her clothes on? Kathy Reichs didn't. I made the same error with Heather, a (male of course) reader noticed it. It's now fixed.
The nice thing about beta readers is that it reminds me of Fritz Leiber who, before he was a famous published author, corresponded with another would be fantasy writer. They would exchange stories, and ended up writing for the other. Leiber would go, "Wait until you see what Fafred did this time," or "What do you think of the Gray Mouser's new girlfriend?" It's nice to have interaction with readers.
And all I'm saying to beta readers is that I appreciate them, even when they miss something--as I deliberately make some things to be missed, and this shows success. And I came on to respond to one reviewer who, although I disagree with many of his opinions about when to put in details and when not to, had other valuable insights.
>> I totally agree- I set up one of my characters to look guilty as hell, but in the background "hoped" I was also giving clues to the real perpetrator>> I loved it when the readers started hating the "bad guy" but they wanted me to cut much of the scenes with the other "and true" bad guy. Those that stuck with it - got the payoff.
And beta readers can spot things that you don't. Kathy Reichs once had Tempe take off her clothes, plop into bed. She woke up, realized something was wrong, padded down the hall, saw what was amiss and called her colleagues who arrived forthwith. Were all male, and probably delighted. Did you notice that there was no mention of her putting her clothes on? Kathy Reichs didn't. I made the same error with Heather, a (male of course) reader noticed it. It's now fixed.>>
I have one- It was one of those Sue Grafton novels. The private investigator Kinsey I think it was, left her keys to her Volkswagen somewhere (the writer made a point to tell us she didn't have them)- but in then, miraculously they appeared when she needed them.
Though, there are some books that tell us every step the character makes, and that can get tedious. Good writing must be the balance, what to tell your reader, and what to leave to their own imaginations.
Maybe "Leave to their own imaginations" isn't quite right- "trust to their own imaginations" may be closer to the point.
CJ: I like your question, "Do we write for every idiot that wants to read our books...
Repeat your "facts" at least twice and keep them few. In court, circumstantial evidence is not numerous in quantity but can alone be enough for a jury to convict if placed in several different contexts. The gloves are proven to be purchased by the accused; the gloves were seen to be worn by the accused; forensic evidence shows the gloves found in the accused's apartment contained the victim's blood; etc. The "fact" repeated in different contexts, the gloves owned by the accused were instrumental in the murder of the victim, is yet still a single fact, but perhaps only with another such "fact" can be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. An author creating the mystery would walk the reader through each of these aspects of the reality of this "fact." Law and Order and CSI, limited in time and audience attentions spans, did a decent job of creating such solved mysteries. Mystery-crime novels, on the other hand, spin too intricate a story in my opinion because (also in my opinion) female readers like a lot of senseless blather in their stories.
The nice thing about beta readers is that it reminds me of Fritz Leiber who, before he was a famous published author, corresponded with another would be fantasy writer. They would exchange stories, and ended up writing for the other. Leiber would go, "Wait until you see what Fafred did this time," or "What do you think of the Gray Mouser's new girlfriend?" It's nice to have interaction with readers.
There used to be a game played in some English-lit classes of every student in turn contributing a part to an on-going (in theory, never-ending) story. It was a great exercise in creative ad-lib story writing, in a sense like a mystery never solved, because the previous writer would often simply make a change for the sake of making a change. The stories themselves ended up being pretty awful creation-by-committee art.
Pages 1
TheNextBigWriter Premium → A Different Kind of Feedback
