Search options (Page 24 of 47)

Janet Taylor-Perry wrote:

vern wrote:

Excerpted from Writers Digest:
***First, dialogue cannot be smiled, laughed, giggled, or sighed. Therefore, this example is incorrect:

“Don’t tickle me!” she giggled.

You can’t giggle spoken words. You can’t laugh them or sigh them or smile them, either. (I dare you to try it. If it works for you, write me and let me know. We could be on to something.) ***

Sounds like something I might say; oh, I did. lol. Take care. Vern

I respectfully disagree with WD on this one too. "This whole conversation is exasperating," I sighed. If I say this in a long, drawn-out whisper, that is a sigh.

NO! You cannot smile words or anything that does not have sound attached. That is where I agree completely with you.

What? You haven't seen a ventriloquist smile words? lol. I have said many times, it is the author's ultimate decision on what to use. No one has the right to "tell" them what to do; we merely offer suggestions or opinions which might sway one way or the other or be thrown in the garbage bin, hopefully with no emotional baggage. Take care. Vern

Janet Taylor-Perry wrote:

, but one CAN laugh words. .

Hopefully, you're not offended, but I respectfully disagree. You can laugh at something or laugh during a conversation, but you can't laugh the words and the words of the speaker is what dialogue tags are for. Just making a sound does not make it a dialogue tag.  If you or anyone can point me in the direction of any sound track where anyone can actually laugh the words, then I will gladly change my opinion. Pick any stream of words within this post or any other and try to laugh them; laugh them, not laugh during them or before them or after them or at them; simply laugh the words audibly and let me know how it works out. Put it on utube and it'll probably go viral. I'd even put up with a commercial to hear it. I would say you'd probably sound like a drunk laughing hyena, but don't want to push my luck, lol. Take care. Vern

It's best to look at that list AFTER the first draft. The same thing was happening to me. So, rather than be paralyzed by fear, I wrote from the heart. It IS an excellent guideline while editing, however.

Janet Taylor-Perry wrote:

Scenario 1:

Somewhat bad boy, yet good guy, who is a part of an international organization to thwart terrorism meets dynamic local female sheriff. Instant attraction ensues, but sheriff thinks he's a cold blooded killer. Finds out differently and helps him out of country. However, the attraction is irresistible. Is it plausible in the world of romance that said man would send gifts and call said woman from a foreign country and eventually come back and have one steamy romance?

Maybe not sending gifts. Or, if he is sending gifts, it need to be gifts that's not an indication of 'serious relationship' - i.e. no jewelry. I've been told by a few male friends over the years that they only buy jewelry when they're REALLY serious about someone i.e. it's moved on from being physical to also include emotional aspects.

The success of this would entirely hang from their first meet. If the physical attraction is there and it's huge, then this would be believable (a lot believable! IMO). But in this case, the physical attraction needs to be from both i.e. the sheriff in my mind shouldn't be too 'shy' (for lack of a better word).

Overall, I think this is a great premise for a romance. The underlying physical attraction from the get go, but she thinks he's bad, and doesn't act on it. Only to find out he's a good guy, but in the chaos to get him to safety, doesn't have an opportunity to find out where it could go. It could become an obsession of sorts, why not.

And like Philisha, I also wonder why one steamy romance? There is only one universal rule for a novel to be a romance - the FMC and MMC have to end up together either happy for now or happy for ever after. Anything else is up for grabs!

Janet Taylor-Perry wrote:

Scenario 2:

Pregnant woman who already has 2 kids is widowed. A killer thinks she can identify him. Local detective, who also is a widowed father, takes said woman on the lam to keep her safe. Detective delivers baby. When it's safe to come home, they do. Over several months, is it plausible in the world of romance for these two to develop feelings for each other, yet be slow to act on them due to all the trauma. Is it plausible that said woman's in-laws would actually encourage her to move on with life, possibly even find a new love?

I see no issues here except that usually romance novels require that the attraction between the FMC and MMC must be established very early on (chapter 1 early for most). The intensity can vary, but there must be something early to hint that these two are meant for each other, like each other and the readers is about to read how they end up together. Without this, it might be better suited as a love story rather than a romance. (but there are no hard and fast rules on this, so there is a lot of room to move here)

Also, readers will never forgive you if you make all those kids disappear just because they're 'inconvenient'. Knowing you, I think you'd be okay and not fall into that trap. But alone time will be tricky and will need some effort/planning, so it will be challenging to get these two to realize they're attracted to each other enough that they will go through all the trouble to find alone time together and look into it. But it should be doable, I mean, it happens all the time in IRL?!

Janet's 2-cent worth