It is April 30th! It is also the end of Script Frenzy, sadly. I won - currently I'm at 135 or so pages - but I plan to keep writing until the last minute. My goal at this point is 150 pages and/or to finish one of my scripts.
I was planning to write this post when I actually won, but I validated during a write in and didn't want to take time out of writing to write this. In addition, I haven't been able to post for the past week or so (easily) because my laptop had a slight encounter with a water balloon. To be specific, the contents of the water balloon.
It is fine, after a week of drying, but it has once again reminded me to ALWAYS BACK UP. I had 74 pages of script on my laptop, not backed up anywhere, and no way to get it back until my laptop dried out. At that point, I panicked and nearly cried.
But my indomitable (and humble) fighting spirit reared its head and told me to buck up and not be a baby. I started on a new script, typing frantically and making great strides each day, regardless of the limited access to a computer that I had. I had almost reached the halfway point when a week was up and I could finally see the true damage to my laptop.
Fortunately, my laptop was fine and I was pleasantly treated to a nice page count boost with the pages I thought I might never see again. But at this point, I was already prepared to write 20 pages a day for the last three days of April to finish my second script. So I said to myself, "Why waste such a productive attitude? After all, it's not often that I feel so determined to be productive." And I answered myself, "What a good point. I will keep writing like a madman - or madwoman."
And so I did.
~~~
On a not so fun note, I also have finals this week - I just finished my first one, calculus. So yesterday I spent doing the entire semester (that was fun) and writing my script when I started to feel like banging my head against the wall. Ah well.
Do you think if I slept with my textbooks under my pillow, I would learn it through osmosis? *chemistry is tomorrow*
Monday, April 30, 2012
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Grab Your Quill - Let's Write! Point of View
Point of view, or PoV, is the perspective that the story is told
from. When a reader picks up a book, they are looking through a camera
at the story. The location of this camera is their PoV. A couple
definitions before the full discussion on PoV: First person uses "I". I
did this, and I saw that. Second person (which is almost never used in
fiction, and is really only used when writing how-to/self-help kind of
things) uses "you". Third person, the most common for fiction, uses
"he", "she", and "it". He looked out of the airplane window, trying to
ignore the girl snoring next to him. The majority of fiction is
classically told using third person, although recently, there has been a
surge of first person books.
All the different points of view can pretty much be summed up into four types. The first of these is internal, main character. When a book/story uses an internal PoV, that means that the camera the reader is watching through is located in the head of one character. The reader sees what the character sees, hears what the character thinks, but unless that character is a mind reader, the reader can't tell what other characters are thinking. All internal PoV use first person, but this also limits what can be written to show the reader. First person anything is often hard to pull off well, even though there are more and more books in first person that are being published nowadays.
The second PoV is internal, secondary character. Again, the reader is being shown the story through a single character, but in this case, that character is not the main character, but rather a secondary character. Nice how the names of these PoVs correspond with what they are. I have yet to see this PoV succeed (that I remember), although I'm sure it can be done. In fiction writing at least, this PoV isn't used very much.
After internal PoVs, there are external PoVs. The two types of external PoV are limited narrator and omniscient narrator. Both use third person, and both place the "camera" in the world instead of in a character's head. The primary difference is how that camera is set up. In external, limited narrator, the camera is stuck. It's placed on a tripod somewhere and it can't see everything that's going on. In the classic good versus bad story, the camera is often stuck with the good side, preventing the reader from knowing what's happening with the bad side.
External, omniscient narrator. This one is a lot easier to understand if you know what omniscient means (I happen to like this word). Omniscient means "all-knowing". Contrary to limited narrator, in omniscient narrator, the camera is no longer stuck on a tripod on the ground, but rather flying around up in the sky where it can swivel in every direction and zoom in on anything at all. This might seem like it would be easier to write in, since then the author can show the reader anything that he/she deems necessary. However, sometimes it's better to keep the reader in the dark to make them keep reading.
There's only four of these PoVs I've talked about, but deciding which one to use can make or break a story. So how do you choose? There's a few questions you can ask. First, consider each choice of narrator individually. Beginning with the main character, for internal, main character, ask what the narrator (main character) will be able to know that other characters won't. Also consider what the reader can learn about the main character and the other characters from inside the main character's head. Finally, ask yourself if you can effectively write the story. This means considering if you can properly convey any emotions or tension necessary, as well as delivering the build up and the climax of the story in a way that will hook and keep the reader. Ask yourself these questions about all four PoVs (main character, secondary character, limited narrator, and omniscient narrator), then decide which one will be most beneficial for your story. Good luck!
What is your preferred PoV for your own writing and for reading? What do you find easiest to write in?
All the different points of view can pretty much be summed up into four types. The first of these is internal, main character. When a book/story uses an internal PoV, that means that the camera the reader is watching through is located in the head of one character. The reader sees what the character sees, hears what the character thinks, but unless that character is a mind reader, the reader can't tell what other characters are thinking. All internal PoV use first person, but this also limits what can be written to show the reader. First person anything is often hard to pull off well, even though there are more and more books in first person that are being published nowadays.
The second PoV is internal, secondary character. Again, the reader is being shown the story through a single character, but in this case, that character is not the main character, but rather a secondary character. Nice how the names of these PoVs correspond with what they are. I have yet to see this PoV succeed (that I remember), although I'm sure it can be done. In fiction writing at least, this PoV isn't used very much.
After internal PoVs, there are external PoVs. The two types of external PoV are limited narrator and omniscient narrator. Both use third person, and both place the "camera" in the world instead of in a character's head. The primary difference is how that camera is set up. In external, limited narrator, the camera is stuck. It's placed on a tripod somewhere and it can't see everything that's going on. In the classic good versus bad story, the camera is often stuck with the good side, preventing the reader from knowing what's happening with the bad side.
External, omniscient narrator. This one is a lot easier to understand if you know what omniscient means (I happen to like this word). Omniscient means "all-knowing". Contrary to limited narrator, in omniscient narrator, the camera is no longer stuck on a tripod on the ground, but rather flying around up in the sky where it can swivel in every direction and zoom in on anything at all. This might seem like it would be easier to write in, since then the author can show the reader anything that he/she deems necessary. However, sometimes it's better to keep the reader in the dark to make them keep reading.
There's only four of these PoVs I've talked about, but deciding which one to use can make or break a story. So how do you choose? There's a few questions you can ask. First, consider each choice of narrator individually. Beginning with the main character, for internal, main character, ask what the narrator (main character) will be able to know that other characters won't. Also consider what the reader can learn about the main character and the other characters from inside the main character's head. Finally, ask yourself if you can effectively write the story. This means considering if you can properly convey any emotions or tension necessary, as well as delivering the build up and the climax of the story in a way that will hook and keep the reader. Ask yourself these questions about all four PoVs (main character, secondary character, limited narrator, and omniscient narrator), then decide which one will be most beneficial for your story. Good luck!
What is your preferred PoV for your own writing and for reading? What do you find easiest to write in?
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Grab Your Quill - Let's Write! Mary Sue and Gary Stu
Once again, the writing advice that I've been writing for Shelfari - if you know me on there, you probably already know this. If you don't, then this is for you. :)
You’ve probably heard of them. Mary Sue and Gary Stu go hand in hand, as they walk down the perfectly picturesque avenue. Mary wears a perfect dress, is pretty, and happy, while Gary graciously courts her. Neither has a care in the world.
@#$%^&*&^%$#! Wake up! Why are you falling asleep? A novel has another 75,000 words of this to go. But have you ever actually read a book like this? I guarantee that no matter how perfect or idealistic a book may be, there is some flaw in your characters.
There’s a reason for this. Perfect characters, called Mary Sues and Gary Stus, are boring. The reader can’t relate to them, because nobody in the world is perfect. The term “Mary Sue” has also evolved to include overdone characters – like the princess oppressed who longs for freedom. Mary/Gary characters are clichéd.
To make a good story, both plot and character have to be original. Mary/Gary’s are the unoriginal characters. All good characters are believable – they aren’t perfect, and they make logical decisions and reactions. All characters that appeal to publishers (and any readers looking for fresh stories) are also different from any character that came before it.
There aren’t many tips for how to make a good character – I can’t tell you that your female lead should love raspberries and be terrified of lighting, because then it’s not your character. To make a new character, you have to make them. If you succeed, the character will come to life. Until you experience this, it probably won’t make any sense; I thought it was ridiculous until I started writing. I also tend to really love the characters that work, and get bored easily with the characters that don’t. If you are not successful, it will be hard to imagine your character’s reactions, and hard to force them to conform to your plot. (Of course, it might also be hard to force them to your plot because there’s a problem with your plot.) Unfortunately, there are no shortcuts to creating great characters. The only way to get better at creating and portraying characters is to write. Good luck!
You’ve probably heard of them. Mary Sue and Gary Stu go hand in hand, as they walk down the perfectly picturesque avenue. Mary wears a perfect dress, is pretty, and happy, while Gary graciously courts her. Neither has a care in the world.
@#$%^&*&^%$#! Wake up! Why are you falling asleep? A novel has another 75,000 words of this to go. But have you ever actually read a book like this? I guarantee that no matter how perfect or idealistic a book may be, there is some flaw in your characters.
There’s a reason for this. Perfect characters, called Mary Sues and Gary Stus, are boring. The reader can’t relate to them, because nobody in the world is perfect. The term “Mary Sue” has also evolved to include overdone characters – like the princess oppressed who longs for freedom. Mary/Gary characters are clichéd.
To make a good story, both plot and character have to be original. Mary/Gary’s are the unoriginal characters. All good characters are believable – they aren’t perfect, and they make logical decisions and reactions. All characters that appeal to publishers (and any readers looking for fresh stories) are also different from any character that came before it.
There aren’t many tips for how to make a good character – I can’t tell you that your female lead should love raspberries and be terrified of lighting, because then it’s not your character. To make a new character, you have to make them. If you succeed, the character will come to life. Until you experience this, it probably won’t make any sense; I thought it was ridiculous until I started writing. I also tend to really love the characters that work, and get bored easily with the characters that don’t. If you are not successful, it will be hard to imagine your character’s reactions, and hard to force them to conform to your plot. (Of course, it might also be hard to force them to your plot because there’s a problem with your plot.) Unfortunately, there are no shortcuts to creating great characters. The only way to get better at creating and portraying characters is to write. Good luck!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)