Search options (Page 10 of 20)

Welcome to the site!!!

How about: Thinking it a prank, she and her husband Zeke Katz, struggling hedge fund manager, decide to ignore the message.

Kiss,

Gacela

CJ:

The problem is there are no other chapters where Oxford and Buchanan interact, except for a very short moment the day Buchanan arrives at the school first time ever. At that point, there is evident tension between the two of them. Fast forward to the very last chapter. They meet again there, like Obi Wan Kenobi and Darth Vader. They've turned into enemies and it seems it happened so because it is convenient for the plot. From my standpoint, it looked quite far fetched. So, I decided to write this short chapter where they clash again.

Also, as I noted before, I think it's not right that Oxford exists for the sake of Helga. Why should she have fallen in love with him if he's only her appendix with no personality at all? So, this short chapters shows part of Oxford's personality: he holds his ground in front an abusive boss, he is devoted to his work as a responsible person should, and he shows a strong personality. Helga fell in love of all those qualities. 

Kiss,

Gacela

Here are my two cents:

I will start with the terminology. Above, Vern stated anything on a written page is “told” as opposed to anything on a movie screen that is “shown”. This is absolutely true. Thus, we writers cannot show anything unless our books include pictures, drawings, or photographs. Everything we write is a narration, therefore, everything is “tell”.

The above said, the word “show” is used in the expression “show don’t tell” looking forward to highlighting a writing style currently in fashion, not necessarily the act of “showing” as defined by a dictionary. This writing style is nowadays being forested based on the assumption the readers prefer it—an arguable assumption that can be discussed at length in another thread.

According to Patricia C. Wrede’s (author of The Enchanted Forest Chronicles) blog (2015)  “ …’show’ generally means ‘dramatize.’” Furthermore, “‘Telling the reader’ means giving the reader the conclusion they would draw, without giving them any of the actions or thoughts or descriptions that would lead them to that conclusion. That is, rather than saying that George is both mean and a miser, the writer ‘shows’ him complaining about his restaurant meal in order to avoid leaving a tip, turning the heat down on a bitterly cold day, kicking a puppy, etc.”

From my standpoint, and according to Wrede’s definitions, which I consider valid, the paragraph Norm d´Plume is quoting is a combination o “show” and “tell” elements:

“Soon, weapons fire targeted the Marines from three sides as Classiarii forced their way through other hatches”, is SHOW, because the narration is being dramatized.

“The Marines were hopelessly outnumbered.” This is telling. No elements are provided to draw the same conclusion (e.g., amount of soldiers on each side).

“In response,” This is telling, because the reader has no means to reach the conclusion Montford is acting “in response of”.

“Colonel Montford stood up and walked purposefully into the heaviest stream of oncoming fire, taking out one Imperial after another until they blew off his left arm at the shoulder.” This is showing, even though “walked purposefully” can be considered telling. There are ways to dramatize “walked purposefully”, like “strode stomping his feet”, “his gaze fixed on the enemy”, “shoving away the people on his way”, which would help the reader to conclude that he “walked purposefully”.

There’s no pure “show” and there’s no pure “tell”, even though you can have a higher number of either element in a paragraph/scene/chapter/novel leading to conclude that it is a “show” or “tell” story.

My personal conclusion is that Norm d’OPlume’s paragraph is “show”. It would be “tell” if it would be written in the following way:

“Outnumbered, the marines were attacked from all sides. In response, Montford retaliated, even though he lost an arm. The marines followed him and the enemy withdrew.”

Because there’s no dramatization, “tell” is shorter than “show”. IMO, nobody writes a 100% show or 100% tell story, even though, nowadays, stories tend to have a higher “show” component than, let’s say, 50 years ago. The reason why there are no “pure” show or tell stories is because both writing styles have their right moment in a story. E.g., “Two months passed” is tell. As a writer, you are not interested in narrating in detail what happened during two boring months, and neither is the reader. You fast-forward the story from February to April because the next event relevant to the story cannot take place until the winter is gone and the weather has warmed up a bit.

Whether you show or tell depends on the circumstances. You can tell “John is angry” or show that he is angry because you narrate he’s kicking the furniture, yelling, cursing, and throwing objects out of the window. You can tell Jane blushed, or show she felt her face hot and, when she saw herself in the mirror, saw her cheeks red (in the latter case, the reader will think, “Oh, she blushed!”).

“Show” also involves description. “A nice cottage,” is telling. Describing it was a little, perfectly well painted cottage in the middle of a forest, that it had a chimney that heated it to a comfortable temperature (you can show even more by indicating it was 23°C), that the furniture and the linens were in good condition, and that it was clean and few disturbing sounds could be heard in the night , is showing. The reader will then conclude: “Oh! What a nice cottage”. Whether there’s enough room in your story to describe everything, is another pair of shoes. Too much description may be boring. Too little may hinder the reader’s ability to properly picture the settings.

IMO, the reason why so many how-to books and writing gurus insist in “show vs. tell” is because, as I started in my first paragraphs, there’s the impression XXI century readers prefer the “show” writing style, or, stories with a higher number of dramatized scenes and richer description. Whether this is true or not, is debatable. Time will tell if the “show” style is really superior. In past times, too much dramatization or too much description was considered info dump and discouraged.  Now it’s the other way around. A matter of taste.

Kiss,

Gacela

Reference:
Patricia C. Wreder. (2012, July 15). Show vs. Tell [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2016/ … style.html

My only concern about writing using different POV's is the voice--I am myself  struggling with this issue in the novel I'm writing now. If the voices aren't different, then the value added is little. Okay, you gain something because, for example, you narrate a scene from the POV of the only character present. Hadn't you do it that way, the reader wouldn't have learnt about that particular scene. That said, the voices must be different lest the POV-character personality be lost. If the different POVs "sound" similar, the final taste is not that the story was narrated from the perspective of different characters, but that it's the same author "faking" the different characters. While that is actually the case, it must seem it's otherwise.

Kiss,

Gacela

Hope the League of Blondes doesn't sue me.

In the middle of the night, two blondes come half drunk out of a pub. Suddenly, blonde A grabs blonde B's arm.

Blonde A: "Hey, look out! You almost step on shit."
Blonde B: "It's not shit. It's blackberry jam."

Blonde A stoops, dips a finger into the suspicious product, and takes the finger to her mouth. "Yuk! No. It's shit. It's salty."
Blonde B dips the product too and tries it. "You're drunk! It's sweet. It's blackberry jam. There even are blackberries pieces. What do you think are the little rounded things mixed in it, genius?"
Blonde A dips the thing again and takes the finger to her mouth again, giving an argument why she thinks it's shit. Blonde B does the same, arguing it's blackberry jam. They continue doing so until they eat all of it.

"Do you know something?" Blonde B says still licking her finger. "I think you're right. It's shit. Yuk!"
Blonde A. "I told you. It's good we didn't step on it."

Sure, I'll check it!

The page depends on the edition, but check around chapter XXVIII. Those chapters narrate the battle.

Dear Suin:

You’re right. I write the way you do. I have first a general idea of the story, mainly how it starts and how it ends, and more or less a blurry image of what’s going on in between, and then I start writing. I fine-tune the story once the first draft is complete, filling gaps and holes, and maybe even modifying already-written chapters, accommodating them to any change made. So, the “Where Heaven and Hell Meet” first draft you read is still subject of changes and fine tuning.

My characters don’t talk to me either, as Rhiannon’s characters talk to her. Typically, I craft the story as I commute. It’s a 30-minute drive from home to my work (and another 30 minutes back) when I’m in Mexico and a 40-45 minute drive when I’m in New Jersey, so there’s plenty of time to imagine—I also listen to audiobooks while commuting, currently I’m listening Snow Crash.

I asked because, back in November, you told us you were kinda stuck with The Best Laid Plans, and that was the reason you were devoting your time to Being Fifteen second part, and to The Girl by the Canal (which I still need to read). So, I wondered whether you had a general plan of The Best Laid Plans or whether you were inventing the story as you wrote it. Mainly, I was curious, because I always wonder about other author’s creative process.

Kiss,

Gacela

You own a bookstore Norm???

Because they charge way over the actual cost of the services. The article mentions Girl Friday Productions charging from $10000 to $30000. My goodness! That's enough to start your own editorial house. She Writes Press charges $5200 plus 20% to 40% of the profit. It they have already charged $5200, why taking 20%  to 40% of the profit? They have invested nothing; they are not entitled to further profit.

Amazon takes 30% of the profit (the author's royalties are 70%), because self publishing with them is for free and they are entitled to charge for the platform's maintenance. But why should a company that has already charge you for the publishing process receive part of your money?

Kiss

Gacela

And it's always the same person derailing the threads!