Text 30, 219 rader
Skriven 2004-08-15 17:38:07 av Bob Lawrence
     Kommentar till en text av Robert Bull
Ärende: Recommend juvenile Sf?
==============================
BL> No. I've tried writing an outline, step-by-step, but it only
BL> lasted till the end of the first chapter. I find it easier to
BL> create the characters first, with just a vague idea of where I
BL> want them to go, and let them work it out for themselves.

RB> So how do you get ideas for characters, and know which
RB> particular mix is going to spark?

 (blush) I use real people, changed around a little...

 One of my problems is conflict. Characters are supposed to strike
sparks, as you say, to create tension and make the story hum, but my
*own* character avoids that, and so do the characters I "create." It
takes me a real effort for me to make my characters act stupidly...

BL> For instance, my latest SF epic starts with the harmless hero
BL> trying to live a quiet life and keep out of trouble...and the
BL> *idea* is that events conspire to force him to rule the
BL> Universe (classic Fantasy

RB> The Universe is a big place. Surely he could have found a quiet
RB> little backwater...

 That's where he starts... but as everyone interfers, one thing leads
to another.

RB>> I'd be worried about being tempted into major plot changes.

BL> Why not? The whole point is to make the story *better*. Why
BL> does it matter what route you take to get there?

RB> OK, fair enough, but I wasn't being clear. What I meant was
RB> that going back to tinker might end up provoking an avalanche
RB> of necessary changes downstream, and you'd end up wading
RB> through an ever-changing swamp without ever finishing the book.

 (grin) It's no good asking me, then. I like it that it never
finishes...

 Actually, it was *very* hard for me to finish the first book. In
real life, the only end is death, but in fact, ending a *story* is a
conscious decision - you just end it and it doesn't really matter much
where, so long as it is satisfying.

 As for your swamp, that doesn't happen. I am constantly amazed how
*little* you have to change to make a major switch in the story line.
I'm actually involved in one now. I skipped a technical point in the
plot, and a few mormnings ago I woke up with an inspiration that
closed it off beautifully...
 
 It meant that I had to edit the whole bloody book, but it only took
me a week, and in total I only typed an extra three pages. I had to
*read* the whole 600-bloody-pages... but the actual changes were minor
and now it all fits with the character I added a few months ago. If I
had been published and was writing for a deadline, then I would have
gone with the early version, but this one closes off the niggling
"cheat" in the plot.

 When you write a book and actually finish it, and submit it (and are
rejected, sob) it gives you an insight into other writers, and the way
they cheat! Abnd *why* they cheat.

 I used to like Patricia Cornwall (she writes forensic thrillers, in
fact she invented it), but her last three books have been absolute
crap... because she's not trying! She's like Dame Nellie Melba who
once said about an Australian audience, "I'll sing them shit." It's
worth struggling through writing a (bad) book, just to gain that
insight.

BL> I *scream* when an author traps himself into an Agatha Christie
BL> moment, and spends pages trying to justify a hole in the
BL> plotting or explain the inexplicable, when all he has to do is
BL> go back a few

RB> Someone told me once that Christie is supposed to have had a
RB> system that sort of plotted things out on a chart...

 Of course! My complaint is the need for the big explanation at
the end. A proper plot is supposed to reveal itself in one big climax.
The two best (IMO) are SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, and SHUTTER ISLAND. A
mystery is supposed to reveal itself in one moment, a hit right
between the eysnot 20 pages of Popirot oe Miss bloody Marples
"explaining" how Aggie cheated all the way through the book.

 It's *easy* for an author to cheat with a chart, what takes hard
work is setting the whole thing up so that it ends on one page, in one
magic revelation! Like Clarice opens the door of the "wrong" house
in LAMBS but is faced by the killer... or suddenly it all makes sense
in SHUTTER ISLAND... backwards! *That* takes more than a chart and
pathetic misdirection... that means the author rewrote the book two or
thrre times, and distilled that last chapter, that last sentence... to
get it right.

RB> I've seen a criticism of Ian Watson's novels, that they mostly
RB> consist of people standing around explaining things to each
RB> other ;-) 

 A lazy author. Or perhaps he writes longhand. It's difficult to
rewrite longhand. On a computer it's easy.

 Getting the plot right, and the structure, is the craft of writing.
Good or bad still depends on the characters and the story. Ian Watson
might be lazy (or an incompetent craftsman), but his stories are still
good. Steven King is another. His writing is crap, but his stories are
terrific!

BL> I *love* the names bureaucrats give themselves. "Public
BL> Servants" is my favourite, but Civil Service is nearly as good.
BL> They are always civil (but totally useless

RB> Sounds like your lot have been taking lessons from our lot :-(

 It's the curse of the British Empire.

 In fact, I think that's the main problem with the Americans. They
invade Iraq, but they don't understand that the *first* thing you have
ot do is set up your own bureaucracy. All they neded as a few hundred
English in pith helmets drinking gin squash in the afternoon and
complaining that the natives are revolting...

 It worked in Australia.

RB> Most departments of the Civil Service cease to exist on Friday
RB> afternoons, unlike the world of business; they all use their
RB> flexitime to flex off... 

 Exactly. I've found that the best time to call a bureaucracy is at
9:30 (before the two-hour morning tea), or at 2:30 (just after lunch
and before the two-hour afternoon tea). It's a very narrow window.

RB> I've seen the suggestion that you should write every day, even
RB> if not full- time. That is, set aside a particular block of
RB> time each day and stick to it.

 That may be true for a professional meeting a deadline, trying to
pack in the maximum words per minute. I think it depends on the
individual. Personally, I do it in bursts. If I am inspired, I have
to write solidly eight hours a day... and when it runs down (as it
does) I have to recharge by *reading*. I might go for two solid weeks
and end up with 160 finished pages, and then read a dozen books in the
next month before I go back and finish it. Then I put it aside for
three months before I edit and insert all the new ideas that further
reading (and my morning walks) have given me.

RB> You should (maybe) read Adam Roberts' novel STONE, in which the
RB> central and narrating character is a psycopath who has murdered
RB> an entire planet-full of 7 million people (in one go). His/her
RB> problem is knowing why he/she was conracted in the first place,
RB> so turns detective as well as criminal, and stays a psycho to
RB> the end.

 Sounds good! The problem is making the psycho a sympathetic
character. Redemption ought to work...

BL> To me, the idea that it's okay to do awful things for a good
BL> cause was sick! 

RB> Yes, but, it gets awfully murky in wartime, even when the war
RB> is against someone like Hitler...

 Yes... it's sick. To understand it properly, put yourself inside the
mind of an SS grunt killing Jews by the thousand. All your mates say
it's a good thing, everyone you know says it's a good thing, but
inside your own head you wonder...

 I'm not sure how it works with self defence, or in protecting
someone having never had to face it, but the few times I've had to
kill an animal for one reason or another certainly sticks in my mind.
I imagine that killing another human would stick much harder, in War,
self-defence, or whatever. Of course, being human we justify whatever
we do... and go haead and do it anyway.

 I'm reading another of Neal Stephenson's books CRYPONOMICON, where
he asserts that everything alive on the planet carries the badass
gene, or it wouldn't be here. This guy is a genuine genius who is also
funny.

BL> Our high-class writers like Malouf, Carey, Patrick White, etc,
BL> rely on literary prizes, government subsidy and academia.

RB> Well... at least I've heard of those, if not read them <sigh>
RB> You forgot Kenneally; he's native Oz, isn't he?

 Tom is on my shit list. I only ever liked two of his books, the
first one (CHANT OF JIMMY BLACKSMITH), and the one he wrote about the
American Civil War. The rest is crap, according to me.

BL> I'd like to see government subsidy swung away from the academic
BL> to publisher and other commercial interestss. Here in Oz we
BL> suffer cultural cringe, promoting "culture" that simply does
BL> not exist. We should promote what we do best, which is
BL> entertain ourselves, and encourage authors who can actually
BL> sell a few books and make money... the way we do with our
BL> movies.

RB> Isn't that an argument for something like subsidising Disney,
RB> and ignoring classical music?

 Yes, it is. Of course, once the "culture" you promote is brought
to the attention of the public and become popular, Walt no longer
needs the subsidy, which is diverted to some other deserving "culture"
like Superman comics. Once promoted and exposed, if it doesn't take
and show a profit in its own right (like Opera and classical music)
then too bad, let it die and find something people actually like.

Regards,
Bob


  


Regards,
Bob
          
      

--- BQWK Alpha 0.5
 * Origin: Precision Nonsense, Sydney  (3:712/610.12)