Learn Writing with Uncle Jim, Volume 1

I remember that discussion. I'm getting long in the tooth here...

Uncle Jim, That's the one (the same darned one I've been working on for 2-1/2 years). That section's changed substantially and is much less of an info-dump than it was at that time, but could probably still use a bit of tweaking.

I went so far as to do a realistic and accurate (as far as possible) diagram of how the process works in the story. The thing I looked at yesterday and realized was that while I might need to know that level of detail for the book, the readers don't necessarily want to know all that information if it takes away from the story and stops it dead in its tracks. That section might be better left out entirely since it results in so much discussion amongst the science types.

It's similar to when Larry Niven used the term "scrith" for the construction material used to build the ringworld in his famous novel. He didn't need to describe what scrith was, he just needed some exotic material that had the structural strength to make the ringworld. He probably had a darned good idea of what the material was and how it was created by the builders, but he didn't see the need to go into that level of detail about it.

I don't need to go into extreme detail regarding my process either I don't think, especially if it derails the story or stops it in its tracks.

sympathetic characters

I went back there and took a look at those earlier postings. I spotted one where someone asked about writing characters that the reader can connect with. Jim, your answer was that the characters need to be interesting.

This is maybe a SFF writer's answer to that question. My beta readers mostly come back to me and say "I couldn't connect with your MC." or "When your MC was hanging by one fingernail from that chandelier, I couldn't care whether she fell or not." or "Why can't you write sympathetic characters?"

I'm exaggerating, but you get my drift. If the genre is one where the reader needs to connect (emotionally) with the characters, how is this done?

euclid said:

If the genre is one where the reader needs to connect (emotionally) with the characters, how is this done?

Click to expand...

By making them interesting.

Do your characters:

a) Have free will?
b) Exercise it?
c) Have a reason for moving?
d) Move?
e) Interact with their environment and each other?
f) In a recognizably human way?
g) With a goal?
h) Which is either accomplished or not?
i) Causing some recognizably human reaction?

See also Mark Twain on the rules of literary art:

10. [The rules] require that the author shall make the reader feel a deep interest in the personages of his tale and in their fate; and that he shall make the reader love the good people in the tale and hate the bad ones. But the reader of the Deerslayer tale dislikes the good people in it, is indifferent to the others, and wishes they would all get drowned together.

Click to expand...

My problem in a nutshell

10. They require that the author shall make the reader feel a deep interest in the personages of his tale and in their fate; and that he shall make the reader love the good people in the tale and hate the bad ones.

Click to expand...

There's my problem. How to "make the reader love the good people..."
I think my characters are interesting, but loved and hated is another matter.

[Mr Clemens really had no time for Mr Cooper!]

smsarber said:

I remember that discussion. I'm getting long in the tooth here...

Click to expand...

Those are fangs, not teeth!

No matter how nice or loving or genuine your character, make BAD things happen to them. That is life. Everything isn't hunky-dorey. A connection with a character runs deeper than that, though. But it's a good place to start. If your reader becomes bored with your character because nothing comprable to their own life is happening, they won't care if the fingernail loses its grip and she falls from the ceiling. Read Dean Koontz' "The Husband," and I think you will be able to see what I mean.

It's hard to overstate this concept. My novel came alive as soon as I began trying to kill my protagonist.

3.

This afternoon I was talking to George Scithers of the Owlswick agency, and toward the end of the conversation we got onto the subject of books about writing. He mentioned one I’ve never seen: On Writing Science Fiction: The Editors Strike Back, by George Scithers, Darrell Schweitzer, and John M. Ford (Owlswick Press, 1981, ISBN 0913896195).

I have to read this one.

Anyway, George told me the three rules of writing from their book:

1.You have to put it in a form someone can use.

2. You have to make it interesting enough to be worth the editor’s time and the reader’s money.

3. You have to put it where someone can read it and buy it.

That really does cover it. The best writing advice tends to be very simple. It’s using it that’s the trick.

Click to expand...

Previously linked. Now quoted for the benefit of folks who can't be bothered to follow links.

FOTSGreg said:

It's similar to when Larry Niven used the term "scrith" for the construction material used to build the ringworld in his famous novel. He didn't need to describe what scrith was, he just needed some exotic material that had the structural strength to make the ringworld. He probably had a darned good idea of what the material was and how it was created by the builders, but he didn't see the need to go into that level of detail about it.

Click to expand...

Inferring from a line in Ringworld's Children, I think Niven didn't originally realize just how strong scrith had to be. So in this book, one of the characters just points out that scrith has a tensile strength on the order of the strong nuclear force. The story goes on. Yes, it's a plot-hole filler. But this is RINGWORLD. No one cares!

Niven has written articles on how he compromises science for the sake of the story. His personal teleporters, for instance, didn't preserve angular momentum. (Well, he later figured out a way around this.) But Niven knows: the story comes first.

--Milton

Jim, I have a copy of the Chicago Manual of Style here. I got it from the library. They talk about small caps, for use in dates, for example 2009 A. D.

Does Word have small caps?

PS I, for one, always follow all your links.

ETA: I had a look in word / Format / Font and found small caps. So my question now is: does anybody actually use these - I mean should I be using them in my ms where the Chicago Manual says they should be used?

UJ, Can you tell us something about plot driven versus character driven novels?

I asked this because my wife brought up the topic about plot driven and character driven soap operas. She got me to thinking about the subject in novels.
Thanks.

You show Small Caps with a double underline.

Single underline = italics
Double underline = Small Caps
Triple underline = CAPITALS
Wavy underline = boldface

You may also find copyeditors putting "Sm Caps" or "S.C." in the margin, circled, where there's a word in Small Caps. You may also use Small Caps for, for example, street signs, or labels on instrument panels.

That's more of a house style kind of thing.

There isn't (in my opinion) any such thing as a purely character-driven or a purely plot-driven story.

In character-driven stories the unique characters and their interactions push the plot along. In a plot-driven story the unique set of events pulls the characters along. Regardless, you'll want strong story.

Euclid, do a search for Jim Butcher's blog (which is for writers) and look for his posts on scene and sequel. He didn't invent the concepts or the terms, but he says that it's in the sequel part that the reader connects to the character. That's where we get inside his head, understand his feelings and his motivations. I suggest going through all the posts - there aren't that many. Even if you don't apply his ideas rigorously, they do give you a real feel for the structure of story. It helped me quite a bit.

Here's the proper structure for any fiction story: Start with action, continue and increase 'till end.

Easy.

Action may be interior, symbolic, or psychological.

I do so love the interior, and/or, psychological action. Sometimes they are one in the same.

See Uncle Jim... I'm learning!

James D. Macdonald said:

You show Small Caps with a double underline.

Single underline = italics
Double underline = Small Caps
Triple underline = CAPITALS
Wavy underline = boldface

Click to expand...

Jim,

When I need (normal) capitals in my ms, I use them (with the shift key): LIKE THIS
(Is this not the right thing to do?)
If I need to use small caps, couldn't I just use them?
I also use italics directly, as this seems to be preferred in the UK.
I have never used boldface.

Judg said:

Euclid, do a search for Jim Butcher's blog (which is for writers) and look for his posts on scene and sequel. He didn't invent the concepts or the terms, but he says that it's in the sequel part that the reader connects to the character. That's where we get inside his head, understand his feelings and his motivations. I suggest going through all the posts - there aren't that many. Even if you don't apply his ideas rigorously, they do give you a real feel for the structure of story. It helped me quite a bit.

Click to expand...

Very helpful. It looks great. I've printed out the whole thing (29 pages of it!) and now I'm off to read it. Here's the link:

http://jimbutcher.livejournal.com/

Hey Judg, I've been reading Jim Butcher. Very illuminating.

I've written the Story Skeleton for my sequel and here it is:

When Special Branch woman, Anneliese, discovers that her father might still be alive, she sets out to follow his trail. Finding herself far from home, pitted against a ruthless international criminal gang working in league with a nest of nefarious neo-Nazis, will she uncover his fate and get out alive?

Yes, It's me again!

I read all of Jim Butcher's articles on writing craft. Then I read his posting where he quotes a lot of bad reviews of his books. Now I'm wondering if I should be listening to advice from this guy...

Euclid, While it might be blasphemy to mention it, I think everyone gets bad reviews from time to time, even Uncle Jim (Ack!).

Not everyone's going to like and/or appreciate what you or anyone else writes. The Big Names (like Uncle Jim, Jim Butcher, Stephen King, Robert Heinlein, and a host of others) might be especially vulnerable to "bad" reviews by people who have expectations of them that no one could attain. Their books are popular so they get reviewed more often and the chance of getting a bad review from someone who a) doesn't "get it", b) doesn't like their style or writing in the first place (and therefor probably shouldn't be reviewing those writer's books), c) just plain has a grudge or beef against the particular writer, or d) just plain doesn't know how to write a review in the first place.

I think bad reviews for books, movies, etc. should be viewed like rejections - they happen and most of the time the reviewer doesn't seem to have read the book they're ostensibly reviewing.

Heck, a bad review for a book or movie, in some cases, can act as a sort of "badge of honor" from some reviewers and critics and can even boost sales.

Yes, I agree, but these reviews rubbish his technique, his research, his characters, etc., etc., everything he talks about in his articles about writing.

What do you think about Mr Butcher's ideas on the "craft of writing", Jim?

euclid said:

Jim,

When I need (normal) capitals in my ms, I use them (with the shift key): LIKE THIS
(Is this not the right thing to do?)

Click to expand...

Yes, it's the right thing to do. When you get the galleys of your book back and you see "General Wyme was assigned to nato," you'll take your red pencil and triple-underline "nato." For that matter, if you see "General wyme was assigned to NATO," you'll triple-underline the "w" in "Wyme."

If I need to use small caps, couldn't I just use them?

Click to expand...

You could. Then, when you get the galleys back and discover that they're set as either caps or small letters, you'd take your red pencil as above.

I also use italics directly, as this seems to be preferred in the UK.

Click to expand...

Then, when you get your galleys back, and discover that the words you wanted to be set in italic were set in roman, you'd take your red pencil, as above....

I have never used boldface.

Click to expand...

This was probably a good choice.