A wonderful "how to write" page!

[katdad]

I just found this terrific page by the writer Jennifer Weiner. It's all about how to write, how to get published, how to find an agent.

I highly recommend it:

For Writers (http://www.jenniferweiner.com/forthewriters.htm)

[maestrowork]

I fail the first three. Oh, and the "get a dog" one as well. But hey, I'm getting published. ;)

[wurdwise]

Call me a snob, but I refuse to read advice on writing by a new chick lit author.

The best advice on writing has been around for a while. "Dare to Be a Great Writer," by Leonard Bishop. A must read for new writers, IMO.;)

[three seven]

Comments removed upon reflection.

[Zane Curtis]

Call me a snob, but I refuse to read advice on writing by a new chick lit author.

Okay, I'll call you a snob. Literary snobbery is probably the worst habit you can pick up in this business (trust me -- I live in a country where it's the rule rather than the exception). I fail to see how looking down your nose at other writers will help you sell books.

[wurdwise]

I didn't pick it up in this business. I was a literary snob years before I started writing. And I don't call it looking down my nose at other writers. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I think a lot of commercial fiction blows. And the worst part is, many of those people are making a lot more money than I will probably ever see.

[cwfgal]

I did read it and found nothing there to be condescending or patronizing. And I guess I don't understand the logic behind refusing to read something I might learn from simply because it was written by someone who wrote in a genre I don't like/read/enjoy.

I have also read 2 of Weiner's books (Good In Bed was hilarious and a most enjoyable read -- you can read my review of it if you care to on the book's page at B&N.com) and currently have her 3rd in my to-be-read pile.

Beth Amos

[wurdwise]

Each to their own. I can't see the logic in reading advice from anyone other than writers who's work I admire, or whom I respect.

[triceretops]

Well, I read the whole dang thing and I'm inclined to take the middle of the road on this one.

On the one hand she has a remarkable insight on how the industry really works. Her "cut and dry" approach leaves no
options to consider, and she's remarkably dead on when it comes to analyzing the her own qualifications and expectations. Her liberal arts education no doubt helped her to accelerate her crafting abilities, and she did well by publishing in major slick magazines.

Contrarily, she comes off as a bit of a snob, leaving little room for other modes of contacting an agent or dealing with publishers. Her explanations seem too be "final, and that's the way it is" approach. Having written and published two books hardly makes her an authority, though she admits this up front. Instead of an endearing success (rags to riches) story, we have a formalized, "I did it this way, take it or leave it."
She seems too self--congratulatory in just about every aspect, and she manages to plug her book quite often. In this fashion she shows her age--having not really received her fair share of knocks in the biz. More of a lucky stroker who found print very early and now resides upon a little soap box.

I like success stories like Jean M. Auel and J. K Rowling. Much more heart in the matter.

Still, the article gets a 6 out of 10 doffs off the ole' fedora.

Triceratops

[Betty W01]

Well, I see your point, wurd, but I think three's language is a bit harsh, at the very least.

(Of course, I didn't go to college, so that might explain it...)

[wurdwise]

Me neither.

[triceretops]

Mee Neether

Tri

[maestrowork]

Wow, I hope people don't see my advice as bogus because I don't happen to write what they enjoy reading.

Sheesh...

p.s. Jen Weiner writes humorous chick lit (in the vein of Bridget Jones Diary). Her "advice for writers" is tongue-in-cheek.

[wurdwise]

Have you written an article or book of advice to other writers?

[maestrowork]

She didn't either. It's only her website.

You don't have to agree with what she said (again, I think her "advice" is all done tongue-in-cheek), but you shouldn't sneer at it and say somethning like "what does she know? She writes chick lit." Well, she has three books published with millions of sales. She was on Oprah. I think she's as qualified as anyone else to at least give her opinion about publishing.

[wurdwise]

I didn't sneer, and just as you pointed out, Ray, people like her make much more money than I ever will. It just comes down to a matter of taste, of personal preference.

[red423]

or was it an opinion, but none the less I read it. I found merit in what she has to say. Unlike the gentle men last night who interuppted the local news.
Maybe we all could learn a lesson called "Let's try and understand". I will listen to or read almost anything, it promotes abstract thought in my runaway imagination, and while it may not register today, I am certain it will pop up again when it finally makes some sense to me.
Some of the better descriptive writers I have read fall inot her catagorization of people. And by the way, all trees do make a sound when being put into a supine position, very creative wording...........red

[Jamesaritchie]

Each to their own. I can't see the logic in reading advice from anyone other than writers who's work I admire, or whom I respect.

Because whether you like or hate their work, they still found a path to being published that works. It's probably best to learn writing itself from writers with work you admire, but getting published is a totally different thing. How much you admire or hate a given writer's work has nothing at all to do with how much they know about publishing itself.


This site says nothing about how to write, but talks about how to get published, and does it all tongue in cheek. She's being funny with this advice.

It's funny advice from a funny writer. Like all good humor, there's more than a grain of truth in it, but she's being funny.
She's being funny. She's being funny. She's being funny.

But any published writer is one who should be listened to when it comes to getting published. There are many roads to Rome, but nearly all of them have certain commonalities.

[wurdwise]

Point taken.

Maybe my whole thing is that there is so much advise written, about writing and getting published, so many books and articles, you could spend all your time reading advice. So, if I am going to research, I would select a writer I am comfortable with, who's opinion I trust. That's just me. There is only so much time, like the time I am wasting tonight, debating, goofing off, when I should be writing!:eek

[Zane Curtis]

And the worst part is, many of those people are making a lot more money than I will probably ever see.

Now, you see, that's a perfect example of why I think literary snobbery is a bad idea for a writer. You're tacitly relegating yourself to second best because you can't get along with a lot of commercial fiction. Well, I can't get along with a lot of commercial fiction either (see Sturgeon's law), but that won't stop me from studying it.

Writing "popular" fiction is a skill. You can analyze it and learn it, the same as you can learn grammar or any other element of writing. And that's what the likes of Stephen King and John Grisholm do while the academics waste their time with things like post-modern deconstructionism and lit-crit theory (not that I've got anything against those). Once you've studied what makes popular writers popular, you can come up with a few general rules of thumb for yourself.

At the risk of digressing from the topic, I give you a couple of examples, gleaned from the likes of Stephen King and J K Rowling.

(1) Popular fiction has a sense of movement, as opposed to literary fiction, which tends to be more static and reflective. That sense of movement comes, not so much from characters moving through their environment, but from the characters pursuing some specific goal. It's further accentuated by making this goal a moving target. For an example of this, think of a murder mystery where the investigator's chief suspect becomes the next victim. The investigator has to stop and rethink. In this way, the writer creates a sense of movement in the plot -- the sense that the story is changing and developing.

(2) On a similar note, popular fiction relies on good pacing. By "good" I don't necessarily mean "fast". Contrast is usually more important than speed. Stephen King, for example, generally starts slow and then picks up as the novel progresses: if Stairway to Heaven was a novel, it would be written by Stephen King. It's the contrast between slow and fast that draws people in. In a more general way, you can create contrast by juxtaposing long and short chapters, or slow and fast paced scenes.

(3) Popular fiction invokes a point of familiarity with its readers. J K Rowling is the best example of this. Her stories are set in a school. In that school we have the incompetent teacher (Trelawny), the unreasonable teacher (Snape), the disciplinarian (McGonnagle), the nerd (Neville Longbottom), the school bully (Malfoy), plus exams, detentions, school sports and all the other trappings. Rowling's target audience instantly recognizes all of this, and perhaps feels that here, at last, is someone who truly understands what it's like, and who's willing to tell the truth about it. The reference points don't stop there either. Anyone who's read any of those English children's adventure stories will recognize where Rowling is coming from. And anyone familiar with fantasy will recognize a lot of the fantastic elements. For a slightly different example of creating familiarity, you can look to the Sherlock Holmes stories. Doyle created this connection with his readers, not by throwing in familiar things, but by writing each of the stories to a specific structure. The repetition of the structure means that you can pick up a Sherlock Holmes story and know exactly what to expect, and all formula fiction since has relied on this idea.

(4) A lot of popular fiction has what, I guess, you would call a MacGuffin -- some device or idea that carries the story along, which is distinctive enough and interesting enough to appeal to readers. In The Firm by John Grisham, it's the idea of what happens if you get what you think is your dream job, only to discover you're working for the mafia. In The Scar by China Mieville it's a floating pirate city, built on the hulls of thousands of old ships lashed together. The best MacGuffins can become their own memes, that propagate themselves in the popular imagination ("Use the force, Luke!")

The point of all this is that you don't have to blindly copy King, Grisham, J K Rowling, or any other popular author. (And, in fact, copies are usually less successful than the originals.) What you can do is get a sense of what these authors do, and adapt their techniques to your own work. And you can do that without having to compromise your artistic integrity. There's no point being a snob about it. If a book is successful, then the author must have done something right (and I don't believe that luck plays anything more than a trivial role, given that books are mostly sold through word of mouth).

What are you going to do otherwise? Complain about how stupid the general reading public is, while you write books so rarefied you can't place them?

[wurdwise]

Actually, I am writing a middle reader, a coming of age story, and I think I can place it. I am more so referring here to my reading preferences, the people I choose to emulate. But I agree, popular fiction does teach formula.

My biggest mistake here was using the word snob. I am not really a literary snob. I do like many different types of books, just not chick lit. I made it sound like I was an academic, I guess, which is the farthest thing from the truth. But, I will say, I am very selective in what authors I choose to read. If I want a good psych thriller, for example, I yearn for a new book by Micheal Connelly, or Jeffrey Deaver.

But as you pointed out, the authors of popular fiction are doing something right. But what I think it is more than anything with chick lit is timing, taking advantage of a market. Good them, smart move, hot commodity. Just not my personal cup of tea, or who I would look to for answers in my research.

[aka eraser]

Fine, thought-provoking post Zane.

[anatole ghio]

You have pointed out some really apt distinctions on what makes commercial fiction different from literary fiction, esp. the observation that literature tends to be more concerned with moments and commercial fiction is more concerned with movement.

I want to point one thing out:

(4) A lot of popular fiction has what, I guess, you would call a MacGuffin -- some device or idea that carries the story along, which is distinctive enough and interesting enough to appeal to readers. In The Firm by John Grisham, it's the idea of what happens if you get what you think is your dream job, only to discover you're working for the mafia. In The Scar by China Mieville it's a floating pirate city, built on the hulls of thousands of old ships lashed together.

A MacGuffin, as first coined by Hitchcock, is simply the object that other character's have a vested interest in obtaining and because they have this interest in getting this object, their actions in getting it form the natural basis for a story arc.

Your example of The Firm is not precisely a MacGuffin: it is more the "High Concept" of the novel because it details the structure of the story without naming the concrete object being chased. I can't remember the plot of the Firm, but let's say he was looking for a legal brief and this legal brief had information that would reveal his firm to be in league with the mob. This brief would be the MacGuffin; the lawyer would try to get it and the mob would try to keep it away from him. Again, I have no idea what the MacGuffin was in the novel, I made this up to illustrate the point.

Good post.

- Anatole

[maestrowork]

Not to sidetrack the discussion, but I don't think that's what a maguffin is. I think a maguffin is an object/plot device that makes us think what the main plot/story is, but turns out to be an irrelevant distraction. One of the best maguffins is in Psycho. We were lead to believe that the plot about Janet Leigh steeling the money and running from the cops is important, that her character is the main character (since she's the "star"), but it turns out to be a plot device (and she a "minor" character) that leads to something else, something completely unexpected. The stolen money is the maguffin. By the end of the movie, we don't even care about what happens to the money.

That said, I do think it's fair to say that popular fiction does have a strong thread of plot device (the central deception in The Firm, for example) throughout the whole story. A main theme of "what if" if you will.

[wurdwise]

To bed! But I wanted to say, this has been a very interesting, and informative debate. I enjoyed it.:D

[anatole ghio]

Not to sidetrack the discussion, but I don't think that's what a MacGuffin is. I think a Macguffin is an object/plot device that makes us think what the main plot/story is, but turns out to be an irrelevant distraction.

I think we are at cross purposes. In the end, the MacGuffin is simply the device to propel the story forward and as such, is irrelevant to the point of the piece.

However, whether it becomes highlighted as a sidetrack, as in the example of Psycho that you mention, or is the real propelling interest of the characters, as in the secret formula in 39 steps, makes little difference to it's function in the story.

See here: www.tdfilm.com/macguffin.html (http://www.tdfilm.com/macguffin.html)

- Anatole

[Zane Curtis]

Wurdwise,

I did sort of get where you were coming from here. "Snob" just happens to be the convenient word of the minute, and I was really only using your post as a point of departure. I, of course, don't know you, so I didn't mean any of that personally.

But I do strongly believe it pays for a writer to step out of his or her comfort zone, and get a good feel for what's out there. I've read too many stories written by people who've never thought to question the assumptions of their chosen genre. It's like learning a foreign language. You just don't realize how idiosyncratic English is until you see it from the outside.

[Zane Curtis]

Okay, maybe I used the word McGuffin a bit loosely. "Meme" is probably closer to my meaning, but I'm not sure if you'd all be familiar with that term.

[HConn]

Hang on, make your f**king mind up.

Those two quotes are not contradictory.

[Medievalist]

Not McGuffin, not meme; motif.

A collection of motifs that work together towards a greater structure create a theme.

The floating pirate city is a motif; the dream job that really is something other is a theme.

[three seven]

I've retracted my earlier comments because they were a little less circumspect than they might have been. Hey, I was tired and irritable. However, I'm still failing to find any humour in Jennifer's self-promoting attitude, nor in the implication that you need a BA, a journalism career and a publishing deal to be entitled to call yourself a writer. Not great encouragement for all the less-privileged unheard voices out there, is it?
I should probably apologise for the name-calling; it was unnecessary and undignified and I'm sure Jennifer is neither of things I called her. However, she does come across - to me at least - as a snob, and as I may have indicated elsewhere (:rolleyes ) there ain't much that can make my blood boil faster.

[Zane Curtis]

Hmm. Now I'm sure I described it poorly. I meant to refer to the sort of idea that escapes off the page and takes on a new life of its own in the public imagination -- like people who learn to speak Klingon, or the recent census in New Zealand where thousands of people entered "Jedi Knight" as their religion. It could really be any part of the story: a character, a motif, a theme. These ideas can be strong enough to take up residence in people's minds, to inspire them, to say something they find profound, or to launch a thousand conversations around the water cooler in offices across the country. When writers tap into that sort of juju they can sell a bijillion books.

If we were talking music, I would call it a hook, but "hook" means something else in writing.

[wurdwise]

"plot" maybe?

[maestrowork]

A high concept, maybe? Jedi knights/the force is a high concept. The Borgs or the Klingons are characters that wrap around a high-concept civilization. Dinosaurs in a park is a high concept. These high concepts would inevitably spawn off and have a life on their own beyond the realm of the original story.

[Medievalist]

No, plot is the relationship of themes to each other.

And of course, plot is different from story.

[triceretops]

Katdad

I bet you never expected this thread to take on a life of its own! There are some really wonderful evaluations here. In defense of the article author, I went back and studied her style and delivery. Well, now I can see tongue and cheek with just a little ego bleeding through.

I've always liked female writers whether it's fiction or non. They have a way endearing me to emotional issues, blunt honesty, and non-biased observations. The article did have this affect on me, I believe, a confession quality as well as a
"now here's what I did."

I stand corrected, somewhat, and add one doff off the ole' fedora to make it 7 out of 10.

Tri

[maestrowork]

This thread seems to take on a life of its own... :b

Plot vs. story. That's a good one. I think a lot of people (including me) don't fully understand the difference, and think they're interchangeable. When someone asks, "So, what's the story?" a writer might say, "This is what happens, then this happens, then this happens..." What he's done is telling us the plot. But that's not really the story, is it?

Let's take Jurassic Park as an example. What are the themes? What is the plot? And what is the story?

[Ketzel]

I found it helpful, encouraging and amusing.

[wurdwise]

I am going to take a stab at this. The story is what happens to the main character. The plot is the different things the character goes through in the story. If there is a theme at all, it is what the character drew from the experience. How about that? Close? Not?

[triceretops]

Zane--really, really great observations.
Maestro and Eraser--once again, solid, cool advice. I often chase you two around the boards to get your take on issues. Like Jim, I've never seen you type anything without thinking something through.

Maestro, that's an excellent question and I'm not going to peek but make a stab at it.

There are three basic themes in literature:
Man against man
Man against nature
Man against himself

With Jurassic--I'd say the major theme/s in order first are,
Man against nature (because nature is so out of control)
Plus, Man against man, to a lessor degree (bad guys want the dinos)
The plot---Get off the island alive.
The story--It's a survival story with an action/adventure pace.

Am I even close?

BTW, I'm from the Cretaceous, glad they let my buddy Rex go!

Triceratops

[maestrowork]

I don't think I know the answer, but this is what I think:

Jurassic Park

Themes = Man vs. Nature
Man vs. Man
Man vs. Self
I think it has all three and that's what makes the story so riveting. You have man vs. nature (dinosaurs, the chaos theory). You have Man vs. Man (good guys, bad guys). You have Man vs. Self (Grant doubting his ability, Hammon reconciling with his God-complex).

Plot:
Well, we all know the plot: scientists create a park of dinosaurs recreated from DNA, a storm comes, park sabotaged by bad guys, scientists and loved ones trapped in the park, dinosaurs escape, people get killed, scientists and kids must find a way to defeat them and survive...

Story:
It's a story about how men believe they are God, and nature proves them wrong. Throw in the survival story.

I'm probably not even close. :-)


Or do I have them mixed up? Perhaps the first set should be "plot." The second is actually the story. And the third is the theme?

I'm so confused now. ;)

[triceretops]

Maestro

You're right about it having all three themes--I just didn't want to overdo it. Usually in a story a major theme predominates, and quite often, the other themes are there in a less pivotal extent.

I think plot can be said in one sentence. Is it not what the major character/characters must do to overcome their major adversity? In other words, what's the major problem to be solved? We plainly know it's survival, but more specific. It seems everything they did (the thrust and reasons) was geared toward getting off the island as fast as possible. Their goal (throughout) was to reach the old park complex and radio for help. Right? To what end? To get off the island. I think you got the same results.

Somebody else chime in. Damn, this thread belongs somewhere's else.

Tri

[wurdwise]

Gilligan had the same problem. (sorry, couldn't resist):lol

[maestrowork]

Tri, Jurassic Park is definitely Man vs. Nature predominantly. The other two minor themes just make it richer.

As for plot vs. story, I think we still don't know, do we? :lol I think because when we think of "plotting," we're talking about "what happens next?" The dinosaurs escape. What happens next? The T. Rex chases the Jeep. What happens next? The Jeep falls down the dam. What happens next?

However, some people also describe "plot" at very high-level: the seven basic plots. So that's not the same as what we usually consider "plotting."

Personally, I'd like to think of plot as the "what happens next" -- the movements within the story. We should be able to summarize the story in one or two sentences (brief synopsis). The 5-page synopsis details the plot.

In musical terms, I think plots are like movements within a symphony. And the story is the symphony itself. Themes are just like musical themes.

[triceretops]

Maestro

Ah, you've got a point there. That's why they call it "plotting" because it is numerous elements that drive the story, wot?

Wurd--gotta love your honesty--you gots fire in the britches and lay it on the line. I too, generally like to focus on one "How to Write" book and stay there, so I don't confuse my damn self. I will read other's accounts of the biz but fondly go back to my first grade teacher, so to speak.

Tri
P.S. I was wrong, this thread is exactly where it should be.

[katdad]

I can't see the logic in reading advice from anyone other than writers who's (sic) work I admire, or whom I respect.

Or whose.

The point of my post was that this was an entertaining page, and that it contained some good hints. But mostly just fun to read.

[katdad]

Well, now I can see tongue and cheek with just a little ego bleeding through.
That was my analysis exactly.

And yes the thread did take on its life. I was surprised at that.

I didn't think that the webpage was necessarily life-altering, just fun to read, and that it did contain some modestly good advice.

The newspaper writing point was spot on. Working for a paper certainly gets you into professional writer mentality.

The dog thing however was questionable. My cat serves as a perfect critic, thank you.

[wurdwise]

Why thank you, Triceretops! And you got that right about the fire in my britches, http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/hyper.gif

but sometimes it ends up a foot in my mouth!8o

[allion]

Quote:

"The dog thing however was questionable. My cat serves as a perfect critic, thank you."

Ah, but you can't really walk a cat...at least, I know mine would prove to be difficult about the whole thing.

The cat is a great critic, I agree. Does yours sit on bad writing as well?

[Medievalist]

I took the distinction between plot and story from E. M. Forster's book <cite>Aspects of the Novel</cite>. I'm not fond of Forster's novels, really, but I think he says some smart things in <cite>Aspects</cite>.

Forster sees story as the what-happens-next of narrative, the narrative bound by time and sequence. He compares story to a tapeworm since its beginning and end are indeterminate. Plot the narrative of events in the context of causality. He gives the example of "The king died and then the queen died" as story. Plot would be "The king died and then the queen died of grief."

In terms of <cite>Jurassic Park</cite>, I'd say that one theme is Man vs Nature, and a motif that supports that theme would be the Faustus/Frankenstein myth of the man who meddles with nature coming to a bad end.

Theme is not something that I tend to be rigid about; I think there's a lot of room for individual readers to wriggle regarding theme.

[ChunkyC]

Wow, this thread was only about four or five posts long when I was here last. Great discussion, gang!

What can I add? Not much, except to say that I think man-vs-himself is a strong second in Jurassic Park, if not equal to man-vs-nature. The whole deck of cards that collapses existed in the first place because of the arrogance of Hammond, his belief that mankind, and himself specifically, could control mother nature. He can't stand Malcolm because the mathematician asks the tough questions Hammond couldn't, or wouldn't ask. End result: Malcolm's chaos theory of unpredictability proves to be correct and we have the disaster.

[triceretops]

It certainly is hard to find a single theme in a single book. They all have some components of all three, or two. But one did come to mind:

THE PERFECT STORM.

I see this as one single theme--man against nature. There are no other predominant theme threads unless you want to count the discord between the two fisherman. Nope. Doesn't work there--that's just conflict. Why they'd go out?
Had to catch lots of swordfish to make a buck--man against nature. Had to negotiate killer seas--man against nature.

Unless...you consider that Billy Tyne was agonizing with himself over the decision to go out to the Flemish Caps, or stick around. (A little man against himself theme with Billy?)

Tri

Oh, Hi, ChunkyC! Where you been?

[maestrowork]

I think The Perfect Storm is Man vs. Nature. There might be subplots where the men question themselves, etc. but in a nutshell it's a story about a bunch of guys who make bad decisions and nature wins. The storm is going to come and take everything with it anyway...

Unlike in Jurassic Park when Man vs. Self plays a good part.

[Zane Curtis]

I usually think of plot as a chain of events, which are linked together by cause and effect. For example:

(1) Because their porridge is too hot to eat, the three bears go for a walk in the woods.

(2) Because the three bears are out walking in the woods, Goldilocks finds the house empty.

(3) Because the house is empty, she breaks in and discovers three bowls of porridge.

And so on...

It's not just a string of events that makes a plot. Each event builds on what has happened before, and causes further events downstream. At one end of the chain you have the triggering event that sets things in motion. At the other end of the chain, you have the climactic event, that terminates the chain reaction -- usually just short of complete and utter disaster. The resulting Rube Goldberg machine, taken as a whole, is the story.

That's how I like to look at it.

[detante]

You can plot a story. But can you story a plot?

Jen

[wurdwise]

You can have a theme, or several themes within the plot of your story, as long as your theme is to make the story have a good plot. :lol

[maestrowork]

Or... you can have plot but no story. But you can't have a story with no plot.

[anatole ghio]

Or... you can have plot but no story. But you can't have a story with no plot.

Plot is the ordering of events that occur within a certain framework; it normally has a protagonist that comes into conflict with some element that works against his or her objective (this is the basic framework for the majority of what is written).

Story is the way in which a basic idea is conveyed: a scary story can convey many different ideas, all of which will be within the framework of the horror genre, and so on for any type of genre that is used to convey the core idea.

Any plot must be within the framework of a story; story is the basic means of conveying the idea, the plot is a tool or structure for ordering the framework of the story.

A story can very well exist without a plot; it tends to have a looser or more associative framework. Rather than follow the ordering of events such as a plot would provide for the structure, it may instead follow a connection of ideas to provide the structure: this would include a stream of conscious narrative with no real conflict or resolution, or an encyclopedic work that surveys a culture or milieu in place of using characters and conflict for the narrative thread (an example of this last type would include "In the Heart of the Heart of the Country" by William Gass).

As far as classifying theme by general archetypes, I think it would be more fruitful to examine the particulars of any work.

By using a general model, for instance, to examine humans, one could say that FDR was an Alpha type personality... yet this would miss more than it would gain for its brevity and approximation.

- Anatole

[triceretops]

I've often heard the following lines in regard to mainstream or genre fiction. You see this (formula?) used in just about every book out there that has a male/female lead with a relationship with the other.

Boy meets girls

Boy loses (or gets in fight with) girl

Boy find girls (happily ever after)

Is this sub-plot, devise, formula? Is this standard in romance novels?

Tri

[katdad]

The cat is a great critic, I agree. Does yours sit on bad writing as well?

He's a huge 20-pound orange fuzzball who sits pretty well where he damn pleases. Check out that tail!

Sam's cat "RJ" (http://www.waas.us/images/cats/rj-04.jpg)

Thankfully he's a good listener when I read aloud to him during my final edits. He's not too fond of my operatic vocalizing and practice, however.

And no, you can't walk a cat. Which indicates their superiority. They're smart enough to use the catbox themselves, thank you.

I did get my cat a leash & harness however, so I could post him out on my patio before I moved, and he couldn't get away. I had to buy a harness that was "Medium Dog" size!

[ChunkyC]

That RJ sure is a handsome fella.

My cat always seems to step on the keyboard whenever I use a passive verb.

Hey tri -- I been around, just not in these brain-stretchers lately. Unless you count Atlanta Nights. :lol

[DarkHaven80]

Sometimes truth can be found in humor. I thought it was cute with some good pointers mixed in.

[AncientEagle]

In response to those who said "you can't walk a cat," as if that were established and unquestioned fact ...my wife and I had two cats we walked on leashes for years. They were as easy to walk as two dogs would have been. The neighbors all thought we - and the cats - were weird.

This point is not of major significance, but I couldn't think of anything else to be contentious about.

[maestrowork]

It's "you can't train a cat; it trains you."

[katdad]

It's "you can't train a cat; it trains you."
Absolutely true. My cat has me pretty well trained now. I'm sure he's proud of the way I behave and tells all his friends. "My human feeds me twice a day and brushes me whenever I ask!"

[allion]

My cat would agree, but he's far too busy sleeping to bother with such trivial things...

And I am not about to argue with an 18-pound black furry cat with a tail about two feet long.