Learn Writing with Uncle Jim, Volume 1

Thanks, Uncle Jim. I'm still going over the list trying to find a publication appropriate for the story that's also reading (it's detective thriller/horror/fantasy in the same vein (literally) as Jim Butcher's Harry Dresden (without the sorcery) or maybe Fred Saberhagen's Dracula Files (with the vampire)). It's the intro story for my Quentin Dallas work (I'm writing the next story in the sequence currently and plotting the third (plotting in this case mostly means doing the background research for the weird stuff).

TLOAOT was previously rejected by F&SF, but will go out this afternoon if I have to kill somebody doing it.



It went out a few minutes ago to IGMS, Pseudopod, GUD, and ElectricSpec.

Euclid, I want to update on my recommendation about characters. I said to read Dean Koontz The Husband. But really any Koontz is good for it, he is, in my opinion, a master at creating characters. Some people will not agree with me, naturally, but they come to life with humor, realistic goals and aspirations, and the way they battle hardships. But my new recommendation is Life Expectancy. I'm reading it for the second time right now, and it's one of those books were I feel like I really know the MC. Others I've felt that way about are, Fear Nothing, The Good Guy, Odd Thomas, Forever Odd & Brother Odd. And I know horror isn't your thing, but Koontz is not a horror writer so much as a thriller/mainstream/fantasy/sci-fi kind of author (Fear Nothing being the closest to horror out of those books). If you read Koontz, and study how he builds his characters it could help you more than a hundred help-books. You can also read Tick Tock if you want thriller/sci-fi & slapstick comedy

I've read a couple of Brother Odd books. Koontz's characters do have a warmth about them that's hard to define. I have another one of his somewhere... Darkfall. I think I've read it already. I seem to remember a very long (rather pointless) chase. I'll take another look at the early chapters for character build up. Thanks.

HConn said:

BTW, if I were going to recommend a book to supplement what we all learn in this thread (and I am) it would be Stein On Writing: A Master Editor of Some of the Most Successful Writers of Our Century Shares His Craft Techniques and Strategies.

How's that for a subtitle?

The advice in it was revelatory to me, but of course, each writer has different needs at different stages of the learning process. This book had just the right information at just the right time.

Still, it's worth checking out.

Click to expand...

Checked this out from the library and I'm 3 chapters in. The guy seems more sensible than Stephen Koch's Writer's Workshop, and more interesting than Ayn Rand's horribly dry On Writing.

So, I'm glad a found a book that works for me, but nothing substitutes practice, as Stein so sagely puts and Uncle J has monstrated in so many ways. Back to finishing my novel.

I'm reading "How to Tell a Story" by Peter Rubie and Gary Provost, while waiting for Donald Maass's two books to turn up from Amazon. I'm half way through it.

Checked out Darkfall by Koontz. It reads like a classic hard-boiled detective story at the beginning, so there's not much characterization going on, really.

Haven't read that one, it's an older one, if I'm correct--I think he achieved the grace of writing good-better-best characters around '98 when Fear Nothing was published. Twenty-two years into his career. Which gives me hope. Because I hope to always keep growing as a writer, seeing a well-known and accomplished author growing and improving throughout his career is good. It seems some writers just hit a peak, and stay on that level. Koontz, King, Kellermann, Straub (and many others) continue to better their approach to novel-writing. Even though I know Koontz is most likely going to have a dog (usually a Golden Retriever) in his books, some kind of paranormal activity, and a lot of wisecracks, it's usually not boring (to me). But I'm biased--more than any other author I've read he's the one who put the fire in me to start writing. Of course, to each his/her own

In the very beginning of this thread it was mentioned for submission to use 10-12 pt. Courier font. Now, that was back in 2003. Is Courier still the font of choice or has Times New Roman taken over? I have seen many sites contradicting themselves and I was wondering what is being used now.

Uncle Jim uses Courier. I was using Times New Roman, but have recently switched to Courier. Both are widely accepted, because you want a font (I can't remember the term right now) where the letters are uniform: "I" takes up the same space as "S," and so forth.

ps, this post was in Times

FOTSGreg said:

What Uncle Jim said. A "how to" book, in my opinion, should be looked at more in the vein of a "coach" than a hard & fast set of rules.

They might have good things to say, but 100% of it's not going to work for you all the time.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. My fav little writing book was written when saying "should" was okay. Maybe the guy was a master of his trade, we would think. Then we'd do whatever the heck anyhoo.

After years of putting it off, I just read Ray Bradbury's Zen in the Art of Writing: Releasing the Creative Genius Withing You. Very simple, inspiring and accurate in my experience. Although I'm working toward being a published writer I learned what Bradbury says in this little book elsewhere. My writing process is quite similar to his. How fun.

Now for the millions of words he wrote before writing what he considered his first good, original story.

Did I miss the memo? We can't say "should" anymore? What other words are illegal?

Tut tut

smsarber said:

Did I miss the memo? We can't say "should" anymore? What other words are illegal?

Click to expand...

Pay attention, grasshopper

Um, what is wrong with the word should or could or would? Unless many many authors are making huge mistakes, many of the books I have read recently use these words. To cite some: the newest Anita Blake by Laurell K. Hamilton, Kim Harrison's Rachel Morgan novels, the Twilight Saga, and several others.

To me that is saying using the word had is a no no too, when numerous recently published books out there use it. I write mainly in the first person, it is inevitable that my MC will use had or should.

I personally believe it is all dependent on a person's style and voice when writing. I recently posted on SYW forum and believe most of the criticism was based on my style. I went and read some of the work posted those who critiqued and found I honestly did not prefer the way they wrote either.

I think in the end it all comes down to opinions and we take and leave what we want.

Hi Jason. I don't think anyone is suggesting that any word shouldn't be used. I could be wrong, of course, and maybe we should wait until Blue Sky explains what he/she had in mind.

I picked up some gratuitous "self-editing tips" from a publisher's web site which, if taken to extremes, could stop me writing anything longer than a three word sentence!

http://www.lyricalpress.com/submissions

"Unnecessary words: Common offenders are that, had, and, really, very, little, then, and then, just, about, against, so, all, but, like and was/were."

No sign of "should" in that list.

Okay, I was just wondering because it seemed kind of extreme. Wow, Lyrical's list is a bit heavy. I think those words are fine if used sparingly. My first drafts usually are chock full of them and during the rewrite I search and eliminate.

I will say when it comes to the word "was" it is almost unavoidable when writing in the first person perspective.

There is no word that you shouldn't use if it's the right word.

Courier is a non-proportional font. Times Roman is a proportional font.

JasonRobert said:

I will say when it comes to the word "was" it is almost unavoidable when writing in the first person perspective.

Click to expand...

Forget "almost" and you can remove the last five words as well.

My own view is that this sort of list is of very limited value. You have to write what you write. Okay, the editing process should help weed out unnecessary words, but the context is all important. Saying was/were should be avoided is just plain silly (and unhelpful) in my view. The verb to be is a critical element of the English language. I know if I really tried to avoid the words on that list, my writing would be stilted and probably unreadable.

(Who said that?)

JasonRobert said:

Um, what is wrong with the word should or could or would? ... I think in the end it all comes down to opinions and we take and leave what we want.

Click to expand...

I commented tongue-in-cheek with political correctness in mind. However, your--y'all's--question(s) sparked something just the same. Btw: I'm a he, but not of Yoda's species. I just think he's cool; even a fuzzy pic of Yoda rates highly with me.

(I did notice how Jim used shouldn't.)

Just kidding!

Should is not politically correct? Political correctness refers to saying "Little Person" or "Dwarf" instead of "midget," or "disabled" instead of "handicapped" or "crippled." But I think I know what you're saying; that particular words are seen as lazy and are, at best, less-acceptable in modern commercial writing.

euclid said:

Forget "almost" and you can remove the last five words as well.

My own view....

Click to expand...

I respect your views and those of others and I'm glad that we can share them freely.

euclid said:

Saying was/were should be avoided is just plain silly (and unhelpful) in my view. The verb to be is a critical element of the English language. I know if I really tried to avoid the words on that list, my writing would be stilted and probably unreadable.

Click to expand...

Looks like the guidelines mean inappropriate usage, perhaps overusage.

When the verb forms "am, is, was, will be, etc." beckon, I check my bobber floating on comfortable surface habits. Perhaps a lunker verb nibbles? By using specific verbs habitually, the verb "to be" pops when I decide to use it after all. This and using prepositional phrases sparingly works wonders for my writing.

I'm not a successfully published, professional writer, however. Maybe Jim will comment?

smsarber said:

Should is not politically correct? Political correctness refers to saying "Little Person" or "Dwarf" instead of "midget," or "disabled" instead of "handicapped" or "crippled." But I think I know what you're saying; that particular words are seen as lazy and are, at best, less-acceptable in modern commercial writing.

Click to expand...

In some circles, authors, speakers and even parents telling us what we should or shouldn't do is seen as being politically incorrect. Poor "should" committed no crime, but stands meek witness to my drowned, bloating attempt at humor.

baby in arms, no caps this post... i think i can see why a word like should might be seen as unacceptable--in text. it could be construed as presumtuous or preachy: "you should believe this," "you should live like that." but to me, all bets are off in dialogue. in dialogue our job is to create character speech that is true-to-life. real people say had, should, that, really, was,... but i could be wrong.

while i was typing this blue sky commented: i got it, thanks!

Geroold discusses the verb "to be" in a chapter of his book mentioned above. He claims that he wrote his Covenant of Justice duology using a technique called E-Prime which avoids using "to be" in any manner. He states that the E-Prime evangelists say that "language infected with being has a flat and unexciting quality." (David Gerrold, Worlds of Wonder, p197). In addition, he gives the following list of words that can be searched for to eliminate the verb,

am, is, are, was, were, be, been, being, become

(Worlds of Wonder, p198-199)

smsarber said:

Should is not politically correct? Political correctness refers to saying "Little Person" or "Dwarf" instead of "midget,"

Click to expand...

Vertically challenged is the pc term now, I believe.

Blue: when I said that telling people they should avoid the verb to be was unhelpful, that was not aimed at you (not even vaguely). It was aimed at those who write about writing.

If we remove all the naughty words from that last paragraph (including anything ending in "ing" and adverbs) we get:

"When I said people they should avoid the verb to be unhelpful, not aimed at you (not). It aimed at those who write."

That sounds...

FOTSGreg said:

Geroold discusses the verb "to be" in a chapter of his book mentioned above. He claims that he wrote his Covenant of Justice duology using a technique called E-Prime which avoids using "to be" in any manner. He states that the E-Prime evangelists say that "language infected with being has a flat and unexciting quality." (David Gerrold, Worlds of Wonder, p197). In addition, he gives the following list of words that can be searched for to eliminate the verb,

am, is, are, was, were, be, been, being, become

(Worlds of Wonder, p198-199)

Click to expand...

...really interesting. I'd like to read something written using that technique. I'm off to the library...