Search options (Page 3 of 20)

While this article is a clear exageration looking forward to highlighting common mistakes, I would like to my two cents on head-hopping. The modern gurus of writing always talk against head-hopping and insist on keeping the same POV, at least through the same scene. They claim head-hopping confuses the reader, as if the readers were idiots.

Writers like Alexandre Dumas head-hop a lot, and their stories were best-sellers when they were written and classics nowadays. Why is head hopping such a sin in the XXI century?

Kiss

Gacela

Congratulations! It' wicked you decide to go for the audiobook!

I wonder if you would be willing to share a ballpark figure of how much you invested. You know, for the sake of the class.

Answering your question, I do listen a lot of audiobooks. My commuting time is ~30 mins, so it’s a full hour listening every day. On top of that, I go to the gym three times a week and run thirty minutes on the treadmill. As Mark, I prefer to get lost in a story, otherwise the thirty minutes turn into an eternity and I end up checking the arse of every young bloke around me.

Because of my consumption level I subscribed to Audible; you know, you get one credit per month at a reduced price, and then they offer you three extra credits at a reduced price as well. I'm always buying the extra credits because I always burn the monthly book fast.

So, I do think audiobooks are a good investment (Amazon wouldn’t keep Audible’s site with so many audiobooks up unless it were a good business), given you advertise your book enough. Keep us posted on your ROI (return of investment).

Kiss,

Gacela

You have to upload the pictures to one these sites that host images (like https://postimages.org/), and then enter a link in your chapter, or forum post, to the said hosting site (like "https://i.postimg.cc/05hRTrXV/Helga.jpg").  I'm not sure if you've followed that procedure. The recommendation is not to upload large images for they they ages to upload on any user's screen.

Kiss,

Gacela

The below is quoted from the page you linked. This is deep POV, not 1rst person present tense (direct inner dialogue) with no italics.:

"Montrose tilted his head to get a clearer view of the hoyden behind Giselle. They looked nothing alike, these two women posing as his dead wife’s sisters. He dismissed both with a flick of his wrist. They also looked nothing like his sweet, sweet Margaret.
Stupid, ignorant fool. Should have known better than to believe. Than to hope . . ."

That's why I wrote all my explanation, to help you undestanding what the article is meaning.

Kiss,

Gacela

Dirk

Indeed, there's a sorta new fashion in the way inner dialogue is treated. I would go farther away and say it's a kinda new way of managing your POV (just for the sake of vaccinating myself against the smartasses, if it's not new at all, please spare my life and your scowling; I'm mentioning what I know, given my limited sources).

Some authors call it “Deep POV” but don’t consider it an accepted convention. The idea is that the author deeply immerses the reader into the character’s mind reducing—even obliterating—the distance between both. If this is properly done, italics are not any longer needed because everything on the book’s page comes from the character’ minds.

There are several rules for this the deep POV to work. Not rules in the sense of guidelines that have to be followed or else you’ll be frowned upon by agents and editors alike, but in the sense of elements that must be present or else the deep POV thing won’t work. At all.

The main rule is the absolute lack of the narrator’s intrusion. Everything narrated in the scene must be from the character’s POV, in the character’s voice, so all observations and comments are the character’s and not the narrator’s. It’s like narrating in thirds person, as if it were first person. If you shift to another character´s POV (different chapter, different scene) then the voice must be quite different. If the voice remains the same, then the deep POV thingie doesn’t work because it seems it’s the same omniscient narrator, only in the head of a different character, but not a different character narrating.

Comments like “had she known” must be avoided. That kind of lines are the narrator intruding the story. It’s okay and there is no problem with them in other writing styles but, in deep POV, they break the illusion precisely because the character didn’t know, so it mustn’t be even hinted. 

In deep POV, the narrator opinions on the POV character must be avoided as well because, once again, it’s the narrator intruding the story. “John’s childish reactions were about to derail the whole negotiation.” This is the narrator intruding, describing John’s reaction to the reader from the narrator’s standpoint (which is usually based on what is generally accepted) and foretelling the reader the outcome of the scene. In this kind of narration, italics, and even thought tags, are used, clearly creating a gap between the character, the narrator, and the reader. Once again, it’s not necessarily bad, it’s only a different way of narrating a story.

The main challenge with deep POV is the large amount of “showing”, as opposed to telling, required for the reader to grasp John is behaving childishly, and for the reader to realise the potential outcome of the negotiation given John’s attitude. 

I’m finally coming to the italics issue that worries you. Another deep POV rule is the lack of direct dialogue (the one you write in italics) because it’s understood that the narration itself, all of it, is indirect dialogue. In deep POV, no thoughts are written in italics because the indirect inner dialogue is powerful. As if the character’s thoughts were imbedded in the narration because they are being thought as the narration deploys—even if the narration is in past tense.

Two examples:

Traditional:

John’s childish reactions were about to derail the whole negotiation. As he gave his back to the men at the conference table, they silently glared at him.

These people are a bunch of idiots, John thought.

Deep POV:

John crossed his arms and pouted, giving this back to the conference table. On the sly, he glared at the men to find them glaring back at him. A bunch of idiots them all.

Differences:

1.    In deep POV, there’s no indication the negotiation is going to be derailed.  John can’t know this.

2.    Also, there’s no judgment about his reaction (“childish”). His attitude is described and it’s the reader who must conclude it’s kinda childish.The omniscient narrator can see the men glaring at John while he’s giving his back to the audience. In the deep POV narration, John needs to turn his head to realise the men are glaring at him.

3.    John’s thought, that the people behind him are idiots, is in italics in the first example, but, in the deep POV example, is part of the narration (as indirect inner dialogue). Because the narration comes deeply from the character’s mind, there’s no need to indicate who thinks the audience is a bunch of idiots. The reader knows it’s John, thus, no italics are required.

Of course, a single scene as short as this one is a poor example. However, after a full chapter narrated from a particular character’s deep POV, where all descriptions and events are narrated from the character’s biased standpoint (e.g., if the character hates pink, anything pink should be described as “ugly”; when the narration shifts to the character who loves pink, anything pink should be described a “cool”), the reader won’t miss the italics and will understand it’s one of the character’s thoughts.

Hope I’ve answered your concerns.

Kiss,

Gacela

I'm glad you girls give signs you're still alive. I'm missing you, people!

Do you enjoy watching Acorn and Britbox, Rachel? I love those channels. I've just watched Tommy and Tuppence's adventures on Acorn recently. If you like Agatha Christie you'll love the series!

Work is driving me crazy. At the beginning of May, I travelled to Brazil and stayed for a week and a half in Sao Paulo and in a small, dead place called Sao Jose dos Campos. Any of you girls could write a zombie story taking place in that town, so dead Sao Jose is. Then I came back home for a weekend and left for Switzerland. I spent another week and a half in Zug, that is a small town too, but you can't compare. Zug is an awesome place with a lake and mountains, forty minutes away from Zurich and Lucerne, that are totally awesome cities. Alas, when you travel for work, you have little time to enjoy all the niceties. It's the drawback of being a slave, even if your masters pay for your travelling (which doesn't mean I didn't enjoy Switzerland).

As some of you know, I have relations in Paris, so I stayed over the weekend and just came back yesterday. Tired? I could sleep for a full month!

CJ, it's cool you're busy freelancing. I've known of people who earn tonnes of money doing freelancing. Hope you've already earned enough for your first Ferrari.

Sheriff, Kenny, resto of the members of this group, where are you people? Come and join the discussion. What are you doing nowadays?

Kiss,

Gacela

PS, @Rachel, what's a GP100?

Congrats, Randall!!! Very well done.

Kiss + Kiss

Gacela

Giving extra points from your own stock is a good idea. It creates an extra incentive for anybody to review particular stories, and is also a recognition to those who review many stories and have accumulated many points. The main objective of this site is to exchange reviews. If somebody has already reviewed a high number of stories and, in consecuence, acumulated a large amount of points, he/she should be in position to offer some of them as an incentive to others to review his/her story. Sounds fair.

What do you think, Sol?

Kiss,

Gacela

Take care, Marilyn. We'll be here when you come back, ready for your new tales.

Kiss,
Gacela

I prefer the in-line reviews over the regular ones. Much more, and deeper, suggestions can be shared through the in-line reviews.

I don’t reply to every comment (some point at typos, no need to reply to them). However, I do reply to most of them because I want the reviewer to realise I did pay attention to what he/she pointed at. I want the reviewer to keep reviewing my work, so I want them to feel their comments were appreciated.

Sometimes, I answer with an argument against a comment not because I think it’s crap but because I feel what I tried to convey was not understood and needs to be further explained. Most of the time, the reviewer’s answer to such arguments allows me either to realise I need to do some rewriting, or to confirm me the reviewer double checked and grasped the message he/she had failed to at first glance, in which case no rewriting is needed.
I also like when I write an in-line review and the writer answers some/most of my in-line observations. It opens a communication mean between the two of us and helps me to keep on reviewing their work.

Kiss,
Gacela

Dears:

I’ve just published new chapter of Where Heaven and Hell Meet V.2.

I’ve done a lot of thinking and rewriting for this second version, based on:

1.    All the comments and ideas you gave me, mainly:

a.    The sheriff kept suggesting that Athens and Helga communicated with each other, which barely happened in V.1. IN V.1 they will talk a lot and allow the reader to learn who Athens is. This will also allow the reader to understand Helga’s transformation from a cold and calculating, never-aging, teen bitch into a human being who cares about her friends. It’ll also explain why Helga decides not to leave Athens’s body when she discovers she can (because she’s grown fond of Athens and doesn’t want to kill her, something that will inevitably happen when Helga leaves Athens’s body).

b.    Suin suggested that Patrick should be less stupid and shy. He will. At first, he’s still the loser he’s always been, but will grow into a brave guy that will defy the Brotherhood for the love of Athens. He’ll love the Athens-Helga binomial despite everything and anything. Despite the fact Helga is in love with Mr Oxford. Despite the fact Helga is the one the Brotherhood is searching for and the one he’s been told to spy on and help to seize. Despite the confusing fact of interacting with a person made from two different halves: Helga and Athens, each one with their own agenda, each one controlling of the body he sees at different points in time. He’ll be the loyal, lovely, nice boy of every teen-age story that every teenage-reader falls for.

2.    The comments from my editor (RIP) that she sent me before she passed away (don’t think I can communicate with her or something of the sort):

a.    The Brotherhood needs to be less a protagonist and more a background threat. There should be a coupla scenes here and there where the Brotherhood appears (mainly Buchanan pulling the wires), reminding the reader the threat they represent, but I should reduce their on-stage time, increasing the teen-characters’.

b.    I need to write more every-day scenes where Melissa, Helga/Athens, and Patrick interact. The objective of this scenes must be to explain how is it that Helga, an I-don’t-care-about-anybody-but-me bitch in the past, grows fond of her two friends and, in the end, grows as a person.

c.    Helga’s background was too fuzzy. Some flashbacks may help the reader to get a better picture of her. Also, these flashbacks must serve the purpose of being the mean through which she recovers her memories, rather than recovering them in one single shot. In this way, the reader grows closer to Helga.

The basic plot, while still the same in the general lines, will have some changes:

a)    Athens, one of the popular girls, tries to commit suicide after being bullied at school.

b)    Helga enters Athens’s body after fighting Mephisto, the devil.

c)    The Brotherhood asks Patrick to spy on Melissa and Athens.

d)    While turning into their friend, Patrick spies on them. New: at some point, he’ll realise the truth: that Helga is trapped in Athens’s body, and that she’s the one the Brotherhood has been looking for. At this point he’ll decide not to give Helga away and will pretend to be cooperating with the Brotherhood.

e)    Helga keeps on flirting with Mr Oxford until they have sex.

f)    The Brotherhood discovers the truth, not because of Patrick’s reports, but because of other reasons.

g)    The Brotherhood intimidates Patrick, ordering him deliver Helga/Athens to them.

h)    Patrick escapes with Helga but is intercepted by the Brotherhood who has also kidnapped Melissa.

i)    The end is more or less the same you V.1 readers are familiar with. I’ll emphasise Patrick’s role in it, but the outcome will be the same one. In the end, Patrick will swear Helga eternal love and loyalty, thus emphasising he’s the cool boy who loves the girl despite the girl being not-cool with him (because the girl is flawed, not because she’s a “bad” character).

Because of the changes, the story’s length may increase a lot. I’ve have always thought of writing a trilogy. This story, rather than being book number one as originally planed, may well turn into books one and two, while a third one, which I started writing but stopped because of the above changes to the basic story, will be the closing of the part.

Comments? Ideas?

I’ve been working a lot on this second version, that’s why I’ve been a bit away, but I’ll will start posting the rest of V.2 soon. And, of course, I’ll be reading your stories so we may keep interacting.

Kiss,

Gacela

Why did Ann remove her post? It was most interesting!

Kiss,

Gacela