Having tantalized us, Corra, will you please tell us what that's from?
... making a series of contradictory assertions as if wisdom (or something).
Words walking without masters; walking altogether like harmony in a song.
I like farce; you go girl!
FYI re Doubleday/Knopf accepting unsolicited manuscripts - it doesn't. Agents only, dudes. It's on their website.
Still trying to prove Darwin wrong, are you?
http://knopfdoubleday.com/contact-us/
FOR KNOPF ONLY — Knopf usually only accepts manuscripts submitted by an agent. There is an excellent listing of literary agents in a book called The Writer’s Market, which you should be able to find in a local bookstore, from an online retailer, or a library. You can also visit their Web site at www.writersdigest.com for more information. If you still want to give us a try, though, even with that caveat, please send a sample of your work, 25-50 pages, and a stamped, self-addressed envelope, to THE EDITORS / Knopf / 1745 Broadway / New York, NY 10019. It will be reviewed with other unsolicited work. Allow approximately 9 months for a response. Please also be aware that we are unable to accept manuscripts submitted via email.
This subjectivity subject cropped up in the early days of the Strongest Start competition on the old site.
I was taught old-style that a strong novel (as against a sort of meandering story-telling) revealed the major characters, even if obliquely, story arc, except obviously the concluding bits, and theme in the first 10%. This is hard to judge, though, without hindsight (i.e., a rule for the writer, not the reader). However, it is a completely objective standard. Genre fiction like massive world-building fantasy with seemingly a cast of thousands and mystery (in which the perp cannot be revealed in the beginning and the victim may be irrelevant as a character) are exceptions, and it still may be my prejudice is with 'literary fiction' that used to be called serious fiction for which this rule applies.
I supposed that the competition represents a random agent or publisher’s eye view of a submitted manuscript. Do they still ask for the first three?
Doubleday/Knopf is the rare publisher who will allege they consider unsolicited manuscripts and they ask for the first 50 pp. which is 10% of a 500 pp. novel. There are literary agents who ask for 3-5 pp. I think, for them both, quality is not so considered as much as marketability. I think even considerations of 'hook' and such is not a 'marketability' issue.
Run a contest out of the Literary Fiction Group with Sol's help, funds and qualified judges. How about six chapters of "Strongest Slow Burn Contest", wherein the authors try to ignite readers with locations, characters and threaded plots until a conflagration sets a reader's imagination on fire with utter fascination, profound amazement and intellectual perspicacity.
That isn't quite what I mean in that I am not trying to define SS in whatever terms one wants to define it. I am asking: is there meaning officially defined for the specific TNBW contest for which there is quite a valuable prize and by which I guess 4/5 winners happen to be Y/A sci-fi/fantasy.
I would think a thriller might also qualify, depending on how much the opening promises.
Yes, if you mean a sort of thriller that is not 'action' but rather like mystery or horror -- those have slow, build-up starts, and correctly so. IOW: does the meaning of SS in the SS contest necessarily exclude authors and their preferred genres?
To a degree, I understand it is something one knows when one sees it, but I also see that SS winners are usually in the Y/A fantasy/scifi so Pow! Wow! of adolescent gadzookery fits whereas the slow build in mystery's and lit-fic's can never be realistically SS until and unless the judges see that there are necessarily different sorts of SS for different genres and especially out-of-genre literature.
For those who have been reading WTRC but have not finished it, no need to leave reviews..
no need then to mention the ghastly apparition of a comma before 'because' in the first sentence
Okay, I tried to write this a hundred ways, but I'm not coherent today. So I'm just going to give a specific instance.
I'm writing in first person. The line is:
I stood in the shadows and watched the absurd scene before me.
The problem may be with the word 'absurd.' If the voice of the character is one of distance, perhaps even of pretentiousness, 'absurd' is okay, but it is at once general and weak---even 'ludicrous' is better for that---whereas a more vigorous voice would say: 'asinine antics of buffoons,' and a young, or perhaps not educated, voice would say 'craziness' or 'silliness.' The major work of writing in 1st is to not let the reader decide and to show that personality of the 1st speaker in the way he/she narrates.
He played 20-40 hours of World of Warcraft. My God, so did I, tried to escape a world that had fallen in on me. This is a great review for what appears to be a very good book:
Is it possible for a writer of fiction who was not even born until 1976 to get a true sense of 1968 and what was the drop-out, hippie movement ("the culture wars and the polarization of American politics"). I can see how might a young historian, political commentator or such get that through sorting documented facts in context, but from an Amherst M.F.A. y-generation-er whose life spanned times of no such repeat of the "the culture wars and the polarization of American politics" (that is: the generation of Reagan Era unprecedented calm and prosperity) until it re-appeared in 2006... ? I'm guessing I can't judge a book by its blurb (though, one is supposed to, right?). You buy it first, Max, and I'll judge on how how you judge. The unfortunate thing, too, when the Amazon Look Inside becomes available, it is not possible to judge by the first few hundred words of a "literary fiction" book. I guarantee that the author had been turned down by so many literary agents who will ask for the first five pages and plot synopsis and assess the book on that.
I often record the WORD talker to my iPod, and then hiked through a volcano near my home in Hawaii to torch out the bug-a-boos.
I don't know what quality Apple voices come in or the text-to-speech Kindle. I closely follow reading the text while listening because most often I write to see words and not so much care what they may sound out in natural speech. For example, I am against treating the comma as a pause-maker but will add one if the SAPI voice skips too fast from the clause to clause. The SAPI voice is dumber than a poodle, and it is instructive to see how might a simple reader treat complicated prose - hence the grammatically unnecessary commas and some word-order issues.
For only $100 in software, one can produce an audiobook, too, though such renderings past a few minutes has no commercial value because audiobook listeners want some performace from the reader.
hear this; a little music mixed in, too.
Could a small change be made to the interface that would let us know just WHAT group a person posted to instead of giving us a somewhat rude "Not Authorized"? On the very page that tells us this, we could at least be told what group holds the post.
~Tom
There's a 'Not Authorized' because you are blocked, and there's a 'Not Authorized' because you must be in the group in which the work is published, and one has to look at the direct listing to see what that might be, and sometimes the author has removed the work form all groups, and therefore (I think) access can only be for the author's connected users, but I think there is also an issue of old works carried into the new TNBW. The plain and simple 'Not Authorized' means you're blocked, but others give more information but never "you must join this or that group" to read.
You have an excellent memory. There are primarily two POV characters: Joseph and Apollo, and I alternate between them, usually on a chapter by chapter basis. The first chapter is an exception since it takes place before either MC was born.
We are in Joseph's POV when he feels himself turn beet red. I could say he blushed severely, which eliminates the problem. We all know when we are blushing and by how much (mildly, severely), even if we can't see ourselves in a mirror.
I've never actually seen anyone turn beet red, but I have seen Irish turn "purple with rage" (but not actually purple, not even quite stop-sign red). People feel the tingle in the face for embarrassment or that building pressure and heat because of anger.
The entire book is 3rd person limited. Everything I, as the narrator, write is through the point-of-view character's lens.
So then the debate is really on whether you slipped into omniscient from limited (basically, author intrusion) which includes presumption on whether Joseph is a character who would really use the metaphor beet red. Is this Into the Mind of God? I am surprised, judging from my reading of the first two chapters, and even supposing that the first chapter is a back-story prologue, it is in limited (Joseph) 3rd. All those italics of God are talking to Joseph but then they start talking to Apollo, so how would limited 3rd (Joseph) know what italicizing God is speaking to Apollo?
Just to clarify, the character turning beet red was in narration (Joseph turned beet red and looked to the marine for his reaction). It was, however, from Joseph's POV. It looks odd when written as dialogue.
I'm sorry, but what do you mean by POV?
Charles_F_Bell wrote:C J Driftwood wrote:I think as writers we're allowed to take some liberties. Can one feel himself turn "beet" red. Probably not necessarily the beet kind of red- but who cares?
When written this way, the reader knows exactly how the character feels. So much more poetic than "blood rose into Joseph's cheeks." Dull!
Unless you want to leach the fun prose out of your writing and have it sound like a manual on how to define the stock-market (or something equally boring) using beet red is fine! As long as you get the point across to the reader.Choosing between what is true and what is trite is boring.
The issue is on the sensibility of POV: "Oh my gosh, I must have turned beet red" is just silly, but the alternative is not: "I'm sure the capillaries in my face dilated." Both are omniscient author intrusion of his (rather that the character's) vision of the truth.
Do you mean "intrusion" or "interpretation"? Seems to me the only one who could speak to how Norm's character would talk, would be Norm. And if his character is of the mind to say- Dang, I'm so embarrassed, I must be beet red. Then that's the right POV for him. If I understand your statement, then it looks like we're in agreement.
Bear in mind that my words for both you and NdP is to focus on the issue: POV, a complex topic--yes--everything put from pen to paper by an author is, in reality, from his POV -- but it is no less important to note that if it is the intent of the author to present the story, in whole or in part, from a perspective that is not of the author, he should do that and not just pretend to do that with "I" narration or alleged internal dialog set off in italics. I am rather of the opinion that few authors genuinely do any true perspective writing because they have little notion of what others think and instead go by what they may say as if that may be what they think. "I do declare, my cheeks must as red as beets." is not something she is actually thinking but some set of words that leave her mouth directed by social norms.
An example of excellent perspective writing is The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole, Aged 13¾ written by a middle-aged woman, Sue Townsend, a lovely woman recently passed, even if bolshie, but written in such a way that excludes all author intrusion in the sense that it could fool a teenage boy to believe it was written by another teenage boy. {Diary format cheats a bit, though.}
Norm d'Plume wrote:One of my reviewers says the POV character can't "see" himself turn beet red (ignore mirrors), therefore it should be wriiten something like "blood rose into Joseph's cheeks." Personally, I know when I turn beet red (blush severely) and don't need a mirror to tell me so.
Thanks
I think as writers we're allowed to take some liberties. Can one feel himself turn "beet" red. Probably not necessarily the beet kind of red- but who cares?
When written this way, the reader knows exactly how the character feels. So much more poetic than "blood rose into Joseph's cheeks." Dull!
Unless you want to leach the fun prose out of your writing and have it sound like a manual on how to define the stock-market (or something equally boring) using beet red is fine! As long as you get the point across to the reader.
Choosing between what is true and what is trite is boring.
The issue is on the sensibility of POV: "Oh my gosh, I must have turned beet red" is just silly, but the alternative is not: "I'm sure the capillaries in my face dilated." Both are omniscient author intrusion of his (rather that the character's) vision of the truth.
“Charles” narrating an excerpt from Chapter 8 of Remembrances and Reconciliation
http://k003.kiwi6.com/hotlink/f08axmn0b … rrated.mp3
----
“David” as "Misha" from Chapter 8 of Remembrances and Reconciliation. David needs an emotion chip.
One of my reviewers says the POV character can't "see" himself turn beet red (ignore mirrors), therefore it should be wriiten something like "blood rose into Joseph's cheeks." Personally, I know when I turn beet red (blush severely) and don't need a mirror to tell me so.
Thanks
"beet red" is never literally true as "green with envy" is not actual, so one can't in reality "feel" a metaphor; felt the blood rush to my face is both literal and 100% first-person POV.
Absolutely, read aloud yourself and have someone else read it aloud. If you can join a critique group that meets face to face, that is the best!
Here is something from your Wilted Magnolias. I tried altering "Zira"s pronunciation of 'contrite' without success. In one point of view, with this reading aloud of the text, the word 'contrite" and/or the phrase 'contrite puff of air' does not work well.
In my own sample, I deleted 'as to blind peripheral vision' from 'so intense as to blind peripheral vision' because 'peripheral' is a too complicated word within an unnecessary phrase, and the way "Paul" had to stumble on the word called attention to that fact..
It is good advice for an author to have his work read aloud, not by a partial reader familiar with the text, but by a reader first exposed to it. Why not resort to Artificial Intelligence, Microsoft Sam, of the SAPI platform, that can be read-from-text in Word? Well, for one, Microsoft Sam, think: Stephen Hawking, and the newer Michael and Mary and everyone up to Cortana in Windows 10, are awful. It has to do with the nuances of inflection for words within the context of position in a sentence. On the other hand, at a cost, but nothing prohibitive, NaturalReader, the basic version is free, and Wordtalk (that unfortunately does not gracefully integrate into Word), also free, give that “objective” rendering of an author’s text. There is still an awkward pronunciation of words here and there, and the cost involved is in the purchasing of the voices that interestingly vary significantly in nuancing inflection for words within context, especially in choice of U.S. or U.K. voices. I found that Neospeech “Paul” for U.S. and ATT “Charles” for U.K. have the best male narrating voices for the sort of writing I do.
If the author’s text contains much dialog, however, the AI approach does not work so well -- though I have found cumbersome switching back-and-forth among voices works better. Cepstral “William” and ATT “Audrey” are good dialog voices.
Samples:
“Paul” narrating the Prologue from my Remembrances and Reconciliation:
http://k003.kiwi6.com/hotlink/au246zl6o … rrated.mp3
I made significant changes in the text based on how this sounded.
“Charles” narrating an excerpt from Chapter 8 of Remembrances and Reconciliation
http://k003.kiwi6.com/hotlink/f08axmn0b … rrated.mp3
----
NaturalReader: http://www.naturalreaders.com/index.html - you can train how words are pronounced, but new version does not integrate into Word.
Wordtalk: http://www.callscotland.org.uk/information/wordtalk/ - will integrate with Word, free but you are stuck with Miscrosoft SAPI voices.
Yes. The point is that English's brobdingnagian lexicon (did I spell that right?) often has a specific word for 'very X', and very often that specific word is a better choice.
Still, I had to notice the author did not actually say that. To say "very accurate," although not elegant, is to convey "almost exact" and not exact.
Link via The Passive Guy, 128 words to use instead of 'very'
Someone in the Comments mentioned that often the suggested replacements do not have the same meaning. "Soaring" may not be what the writer of "very high" meant at all because soaring means the process of coming into a state of high altitude and not being there. The suggestion ought to be (1) drop "very" as a needless superlative and/or (2) use a more interesting adjective: hovering, steep, soaring, etc. have more precise meanings and shades of difference for "high."
President Donald Trump. We died.
Benghazi Butcher lets Lincoln Bedroom.
TO me, a novel works if it flows from the start and I can't stop writing it. Something in me takes over the process
So you prefer the "organic' method rather than the "outlined" method of writing? Organic writing unfortunately is very mood sensitive, and it can be weeks or months to finish a small plotline to advance the book, probably not best for a writer who has to make a living at it on deadlines and such. Some authors alter the mood externally, but I find the inspiration I seek comes from experiences that seem to come from the blue as if to complete my thought on something, and that creates the mood to write.
You do know there is a substantive difference in storytelling through the written word and a movie, right?
For once, I agree with with Max's general reaction ("fiction is a fine art") but go further to say that Pixars 22 advice is fine for a McDonald's franchise but some prefer Renato's Palm Beach. No problem with #5,6,7,13,14,15,17 as helpful, though.
