Tag Archives: fiction writing

by

Is writing a book like building a house?

When I was working on my house, I added about 1100sq. ft., about five years ago. The first parts of the project were fairly easy in terms of planning. First a contractor came in and set the foundation, then I put in the floor joists and sub-floor of the first story, rolling straight into wall framing and sheeting. After that, I took the roof off the existing structure, and put in the floor joists and sub-floor for the second story. Once that was all in place, once again, I was framing and sheeting the walls, which was followed quickly by installation of roof trusses and roof sheathing, which led immediately to shingles. Having all that done, the real work began and the strategy started to become more about preference. Living in Alaska, I opted to focus on insulation, windows followed by interior framing, and then wiring. Normally, this would have occurred in a slightly different order, but if I wanted to continue working that was how it needed to be. Now, once I got that sorted, it was really a matter of preference.

It seems to me that this is where I’m at with my story. I’ve got a few chapters near the end to move from outline to draft, the first major revision, and polish, to the subplot, and of course I still need to go through again and really get that main character nailed down. He needs to be strong and charismatic, and he’s not there yet. I feel like where I’m at in my story is analogous to the point at which I walked into my newly dry house, and looked some 28 feet up the empty stairwell into the trusses of a hollow shell of a yet-to-be dwelling. It hit me like a physical pain back then. I have so much work to do, was my thought. I’d just spent every free moment of my summer getting it to that point and it wasn’t even half-way. I was right, the struggle went on for another 18 months. I tried to tackle things in a certain order to make life easier when I got to the next part. I’d like to approach my story in the same way. My intuition is telling me to just get the whole damn thing written, and worry about the details later, but another part of me says, don’t waste your time on the end because you don’t know all of the details that got him there yet. I suppose in the example of building a house, revision really isn’t on the table. With a book it’s just the nature of things. So, with all of that rubber-ducking and reminiscing out of the way. I’m going to commit myself to drafting out the last few chapters, leave the sub-plot revision until the end, and see if the end of the story doesn’t help me get a better sense of my main character. Is this a good strategy? No idea, never done this before. Anyhow, no I’m off for a run before the night gets away from me.

by

Chapter 3 reconsidered

Last night I spent several hours thinking about my chapter 3 re-write, while trying to avoid being drawn into the gossip and scandal of Downtown Abbey. I also spent a bit of time rubber-ducking it with my wife, again pausing to listen to various witty comments delivered by the dowager duchess. Distractions aside, the conclusion I reached is, in fact, I could simply add a few sentences here and there to modify the situation to be more plausible. It may be that I said I was going to avoid going into a lot of detail on my story, and I’m going to stick with that, but I’m going to describe this situation and how I approached it, partly to help me solidify how I feel about this solution.

At the end of chapter 2 my main character is captured by the bad guy and some henchmen. Chapter 3 sets out with the main character tied up, apparently in the middle of an open field with no guard set. The plausibility problem here is that the main character’s back story involves him being a soldier. It’s simply not realistic, actually too convenient for him to be left in the middle of a field and unattended. He could just crawl off and free himself. If they were indeed real people, the captors would certainly have spotted this problem, and solved it for me. A more plausible situation would have involved the main character being tied up, and set inside a disused building and set under guard. This would work, because the setting is an old farm with many dilapidated buildings. However, the original, and necessary, plan of escape for the main character was to be freed by a man who he had visited earlier that day. That bit can’t really change without dramatic modifications to the story, which would work, but I think its unnecessary. If the main character were, indeed, locked in a building it’ll be a lot harder to be freed by this man. Virtually impossible actually.

I began writing the revision with the disused building in mind, but it was hard, and not working and I was struggling to imagine how the main character might be freed under the circumstances. Believable, yes, workable, not so much. This is where the rubber ducking came into play. In taking apart the plausibility, I realized that the main character just needs to be tied to something. The farm would have a broken wagon, even operational farms are likely to have this sort of thing lying about. I expect they might even feel they could keep a better eye on him this way. The next bit is to set a guard. If I stick with the concept that the men who captured him are arrogant and confident, this would be a token effort. My solution is to add a guard, who has fallen asleep. Then, the other men, who had not yet turned in for the evening, would simply ignore this lapse. The main character wouldn’t be going anywhere. Then, later, this situation actually connects better with a bit of action where the leader takes retribution for the lapse. So, no-rewrite necessary, just a heavy revision. All that really needed to happen was to flesh out the details better. The story will run just fine with these details inserted. It’s still a little tenuous on the plausibility, but passable.

by

Thinking about dialogue

On Friday evening, my wife suggested the children pick out a movie to watch before bed. We could have a little family time, eat some popcorn and hang out. Something that has been shockingly hard to accomplish since she started back at work this past summer. The children wanted to see the Star Trek about the whales (Star Trek IV – the Voyage home). We fired up the ol’ Netflix streaming, and got it rolling. As usual, I had a notepad and paper and was busily nerd-crafting away in my own little world when a bit of dialogue caught my attention. Now, before I start in, I want to be clear. I love Star Trek, I do NOT think the screen-writers are idiots. I do, however, think the bit of dialogue in question is cringe-worthy, partly because it mucks-up details of the plot while actually trying to address them. Now, in analyzing the bit of dialogue, I fully understand why this was written as it was. That said, as an aspiring writer I would say the following exchange should be held up as a shining example of how not to get information across to your reader. Also, I apologize if the quote isn’t 100% accurate, my transcription skills aren’t awesome.

“Kirk: Spock?”

“Spock: As suspected. The probe’s transmissions are the songs sung by whales.”

“Kirk: Whales…”

“Spock: Specifically, humpback whales.”

“Bones: That’s crazy, who would send a probe hundreds of light years to talk to whales?”
“Kirk: It’s possible. Whales have been on earth for longer than that.”
“Spock: Ten million years earlier. Humpback whales were heavily hunted by men. They’ve been extinct since the twenty-first century. It is possible that an alien intelligence sent the probe to determine why they lost contact.

“Bones: My god”

This is a very short exchange to reveal a lot of details, some of which are lost on the viewer, or at least horribly muddied because of the execution. First off, we have the obvious message that people hunted these animals to extinction sometime in the 21st century. The way this comes off is too heavy-handed. Instead of being a throw away comment, as it would be if it were true. It’s too direct for anything that would happen in casual conversation. If Spock were giving a paper in a research symposium, this might be the appropriate phrasing, but he’s not, and so it wouldn’t, even for a half-Vulcan. Second, we have an alien intelligence that has sent a probe to make contact with a species it would have lost contact with hundreds of years prior. Between 200 and 280 years based on the information we have. In order for this to work out, the communication would have had to be near instantaneous because the implication is that the probe traveled at speeds slower than warp, but near light speed. Though, none of that’s really clear at any point, and the more I think about it, the bigger the inconsistency seems. I’m going to ignore that though because it could be dealt with easily enough, and it’s actually not super-relevant. Another problem is that Kirk adds information about how long whales have been on Earth. It’s really just irrelevant or, at best, supports a dodgy explanation about the whale’s communication with this alien intelligence, and how long it took the probe to get there. In any event, as executed, this bit of dialogue is supposed to carry the justification for a big part of the plot and, in my opinion, it seems to muddy more than clarify. A better exchange might look like the following (read these in the voice of each character, I’m also trying to stick as closely as I can to their voices and character):

“Kirk: Spock, are you going to tell us what’s on your mind?”

“Spock: Yes. I believe the probe’s transmissions are the songs sung by whales.”

“Bones: That’s crazy. Who would send a probe hundreds of light years to talk to an extinct species?”

“Kirk: It’s true. They were hunted to extinction almost three hundred years ago.”

“Spock: If the whales were in contact with a distant alien intelligence, it is possible they described the relentless hunting of their species by men. ”

“Kirk: Do you think the probe was sent as retribution for the killing of the whales?

“Spock: Yes, I do.”

“Bones: My god.”

The first thing I’m going to say about my revision is that it is still not awesome, but I like it better. It fixes a few problems I have always had with the plot of the movie in general, or at least that I didn’t understand until really looking at this little bit of dialogue. First off, it recognizes the fact that all three men would know about the extinction of Humpback Whales (the disappearance of such a large charismatic species would be remembered even 300 years in the future), they should talk about it like they do. Then, my revision goes a step further and gives a reason for the attack on earth, which had been implied by the plot, but the characters seem oblivious, which they wouldn’t be because, again, they are all smart guys. This bit still gets across the main points, without silly monologue. Of course, there are other possible scenarios that the writers had in mind, rendering my revision invalid.

I feel like writing dialogue can seem daunting to an aspiring writer because if you screw it up, your reader will not forgive you. Not only that, it’s tough to know how much detail you can strip out before you start to lose context. I usually start with a lot of very specific information in all exchanges, and then remove during revision, relying on context to fill in the blanks, or sometimes a physical tell, like a tightening of a jaw muscle or something. Perhaps my point in this post is to say, if your characters would reasonably know a bit of information, let them know it or at least have a reason why they shouldn’t. Show them catching on, when something is being explained. Your characters are supposed to be people, and like people they will figure stuff out and say things like “oh, now I get it…” Not only that, you can get it to your reader just as effectively through dialogue even if everyone knows the same information.