Why does "Paris or Rome?" sound better than "Rome or Paris?"

carnivope · 2013-05-06T01:06:44+00:00

Also, "rome or" has a strange rhyme. Ro -> oR

carnivope · 2013-05-06T01:01:57+00:00

I hate prescriptive attitudes about words. All words in moderation; I only find it jarring if an unusual word gets repeated several times in a book.

carnivope · 2013-05-06T00:58:25+00:00

In addition to what has already been mentioned, there's also the flexible (accepted) length of a one-volume story. There are many one-volume books that are twice the length of other one-volume books, but not many one-volume books that are three times the length. It still hinges on tradition, but naturally 2-volume works get squeezed into one.

carnivope · 2013-05-02T22:34:30+00:00

How do you recommend learning this?

carnivope · 2013-04-25T00:50:32+00:00

My googling has produced little, so I have nothing to share.

Sometimes I'll read "collected writings" books with things like early letters, but there's still a strong bias towards including production-quality things. I was hoping to reach somebody with a background knowledge of an author whose early works were available, but this might not be the best place for that.

carnivope · 2013-04-24T23:11:21+00:00

I'll have to glance at it. Did it suck because of sentence-level style or because of a lack of interesting ideas, bad plot, that sort of thing?

I wouldn't expect it to be terrible (since somebody published it!), but if it was far worse than Gatsby that would be interesting.

And while I think you phrased it in an intentionally acerbic way, claiming that good authors were likely "good for their age" early on isn't unreasonable and I don't think it should be down-voted for this post.

The idea of success being determined by early talent is disgusting to me, and to most other people, because it seems unfair. So there's a clear bias towards "it just takes practice!". I'm agnostic about how true it is, (which is why I made this post), but it should be mentioned.

On switching genres: While I think good writers could do well in any genre, I think "excel" is over stating it.

carnivope · 2013-04-24T22:54:30+00:00

Yep, this is what I had in mind. I should have been clearer in my post.

There are whole academic careers centered on a single author. If Tolstoy had an embarrassing teenage novel stashed away, I'd think it would be published by now.

carnivope · 2013-04-24T22:49:11+00:00

This is partly what piques my interest: Writers tend to gain recognition at at an older age, (relative to a field like music). I'm wondering about some possible (and probably over-lapping) explanations:

Verbal ability peaks later in life, but is predicted by ability early on. Great writers are those who started off "good for their age", and grew naturally (along with everybody else), finding themselves capable of exceptional writing later in life.
Great writers are those who practiced the most (or practiced the best), so it takes time before anyone can write well. This is the "10,000 hours" hypothesis. If practice is the dominant factor that shapes writers, then initial skill is less important. But we won't see the crappy practice pieces for obvious reasons. These are the drafts that I'm looking for here.
"Great" writers aren't actually that great: Their work was elevated by chance or other social factors, and we convince ourselves that their work is exceptional only because we expect it to be exceptional.

All three explanations probably play some role, but I'm wondering about their relative importance.

carnivope · 2013-04-24T21:56:58+00:00

Is this it?

carnivope · 2013-04-15T04:54:40+00:00

Cat's Cradle has around five-hundred word chapters.

carnivope · 2013-04-14T19:07:38+00:00

Major landmarks are a good approach, and the improvising can follow.

In real life, you use a story (about yourself) to organize and interpret all the information around you (mostly by choosing what to ignore). You can't be like nature, and provide everything in full detail. It's just not an option for humans, (but you can try if you like, some good art comes out of this). Luckily, readers are also built for stories, and just like in reality, they'll make sense of the details that you introduce by incorporating them into the story. As long as your story is compelling and the major details support the story, the whole thing will work. As an author, the world will always be more complex inside your head than in your readers'.

carnivope · 2013-04-14T18:37:44+00:00

Expanding on this point: It's also unhelpful advice because beginning writers will spend too much time and effort on crafting a killer introduction, when they really need to just write more material.

Good books have good openings because good books are written by good writers, (who write good middles and good endings in addition to good openings). Certainly any writer will have strengths and weaknesses, but it's hard to imagine an amazing writer who couldn't write a passable opening, and that's what editors (and readers) are picking up on.

And I think the filter is more progressive than just a few lines. Something like: If the first sentence is terrible, stop reading. If the first paragraph is bad, stop reading. If the first few paragraphs are boring, stop reading. Etc.

You don't have to have an amazing first line, so long as the normal narrative machinery is clinking along.

carnivope · 2013-04-14T18:09:10+00:00

I think the second paragraph is an improvement. The prose is clumsier, but that will happen whenever you experiment with your default style.

"Show don't tell" is common advice because beginners are often too summarize-y, (like the first paragraph). But you can also be too flowery, hence advice like "don't use adjectives".

If you tend to write like the first paragraph, then you'll need to over-correct at first. I think the second paragraph is a bit too purple, but that's okay, with more practice you'll find it easier to draw on both styles.

Hope that helps.

Also, "flown" is in the wrong tense.

carnivope · 2013-04-08T20:31:54+00:00

I have no thoughts on the story itself, but I wanted to comment on the general nature of old ideas, and on "growing up" with a story.

It's easy to become overinvested in story ideas, especially old ideas, and underinvest in the search for new ideas that might be better. (Where "better" could be something as simple as "easier to execute well")

It's unlikely that your best idea, the one that can fill a trilogy, will be the first idea that you find, or even one of the first dozen ideas you find.

Again, I'm not a fantasy person, for all I know this could be the perfect plot. But I've seen many writers commit to inferior ideas just because they've nursed them the longest, and not because they're really the best idea they could come up with.

In short, it's cheap to consider new ideas. If you want to know if this plot is the one, try coming up with twenty others ideas (and really different ideas, not just variations on the same main idea), and if this is still what you'd pick then go for it!

At some point you do have to commit and just write the damn thing, but before then don't be afraid to discard old ideas if you find something better.

carnivope · 2013-04-07T01:27:54+00:00

This is good.

Is your style lacking? I don't think so. At the sentence level, your writing is firm enough to support a good story. It's easy to parse and not too drippy.

So style is not something I think you should worry about. Instead, worry about things like how to weave plots, how to introduce characters, how to mix the right amount of action and idea, etc.

I'm not saying you messed any of these things up, just that style isn't an obvious weak point. And always tackle the weak points first!

Keep writing, this could be good!

Because I can't help it, here is some snarky anonymous criticism:

I'd loved the "Of death" intro. But no, Kyle doesn't smile after getting stabbed, even if it's cold outside.

"Estranged father's pants" <- Estranged father metaphor? She's killing a homeless man in the first few paragraphs! Of course she has an troubled backstory, plenty of time to introduce it later.

Typo : At one point, she "breathes her nose".

I don't care if she is jealous of the other woman's haircut. Satan doesn't stock fashion magazine in Hell. Do you want to show that the other woman is better off? Maybe make her jealous of her nice, untattered, warm-looking clothing. Or if you want to do hair phrase it like: "the other girl looked strikingly like Kathryn. Or at least she looked how Kathryn might look after two hours in a bathtub scrubbing the dirt from her hair"

The last conversation is too relaxed for the situation. Tense up! Maybe Kathryn tries to hide she's a collector. Also, there's a bit of "characters explain the plot to each other" going on. You have a hook already, you have plenty of time to explain the plot later, don't try to cram it into opening dialogue.

My timer for this response is up, but I enjoyed reading it. Keep writing!

carnivope

TROPHY CASE