Brief fic writing thoughts
Mar. 6th, 2012 11:09 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shapinglightHmm. Seems I'm having thoughts about several of the fics on my To Do list. I know who comes next in my litte Being a Vampire Sucks series (meant to write it yesterday, but didn't have time), and this morning, I thought of a way to proceed with this Spike and Riley army story I vaguely had in my head, in that I worked out who Buffy was in the story, and who they were fighting against, so that's progress.
More within with slight spoilers for Dorothy Dunnett's Lymond series.
What I'm not getting anywhere with is the next part of my Spike/Giles season 7 story. I feel like the plot has become very convoluted and I'm tying myself in knots trying to work out what happens next- plus, whenever I sit down to think about the story, my brain goes into sleep mode. Obviously, I don't really want to think about it. :(
I should probably have changed the way I write it and taken a leaf out of myevil twin's other LJ's book, and written it in 1000 words chunks, made up as I go along. 1000 words works really well for me, I find, because it gives you enough room to include what you need to include, but teaches you to cut out what's not necessary - goodbye annoying exposition dumps.
Too late for that, I think. I'll just have to do it the hard way.
Writing is hard, isn't it? I so much admire anyone who can write in a way that makes it seem effortless. I just finished The Wee Free Men, and Terry Pratchett is a case in point. He writes so simply - the words just flow - and yet he manages to say so much. The same is true of another author I've always admired, Ursula K Le Guin. And yet both writers probably agonise over every sentence. Very impressive.
Should probably say here that, much though I admire complicated plots, I prefer for them to be comprehensible, which is why I occasionally get frustrated by two of my favourite writers (well, the first isn't so much a favourite any more, as I can see all the faults in her writing), CJ Cherryh and Dorothy Dunnett. My brain just isn't up to trying to work out what the bloody hell is going on after I've finished the book. It frustrates me no end to this day that I have to guess which of the children died and which survived at the end of Dunnett's A Pawn in Frankincense, or that there may be clues there in the text that make it crystal clear which it is and I was just too dense to see them.
So anyway, I don't want my Spike/Giles story to be like that. Don't want to telegraph stuff, but do want people to know what was actually happening.
Opinions, anyone? Do you like puzzling stuff out post-reading, or would you rather (within reason) that it was spelt out for you?
Please note: I'm not talking about stuff that is a matter of opinion, like did Buffy mean the ILY in Chosen, but the actual mechanics of the plot, though post-the Buffy comics, I'm sick to death of emotional ambiguity too.
More within with slight spoilers for Dorothy Dunnett's Lymond series.
What I'm not getting anywhere with is the next part of my Spike/Giles season 7 story. I feel like the plot has become very convoluted and I'm tying myself in knots trying to work out what happens next- plus, whenever I sit down to think about the story, my brain goes into sleep mode. Obviously, I don't really want to think about it. :(
I should probably have changed the way I write it and taken a leaf out of my
Too late for that, I think. I'll just have to do it the hard way.
Writing is hard, isn't it? I so much admire anyone who can write in a way that makes it seem effortless. I just finished The Wee Free Men, and Terry Pratchett is a case in point. He writes so simply - the words just flow - and yet he manages to say so much. The same is true of another author I've always admired, Ursula K Le Guin. And yet both writers probably agonise over every sentence. Very impressive.
Should probably say here that, much though I admire complicated plots, I prefer for them to be comprehensible, which is why I occasionally get frustrated by two of my favourite writers (well, the first isn't so much a favourite any more, as I can see all the faults in her writing), CJ Cherryh and Dorothy Dunnett. My brain just isn't up to trying to work out what the bloody hell is going on after I've finished the book. It frustrates me no end to this day that I have to guess which of the children died and which survived at the end of Dunnett's A Pawn in Frankincense, or that there may be clues there in the text that make it crystal clear which it is and I was just too dense to see them.
So anyway, I don't want my Spike/Giles story to be like that. Don't want to telegraph stuff, but do want people to know what was actually happening.
Opinions, anyone? Do you like puzzling stuff out post-reading, or would you rather (within reason) that it was spelt out for you?
Please note: I'm not talking about stuff that is a matter of opinion, like did Buffy mean the ILY in Chosen, but the actual mechanics of the plot, though post-the Buffy comics, I'm sick to death of emotional ambiguity too.
no subject
Date: 2012-03-06 11:16 am (UTC)If I'm left trying to puzzle stuff out long after I finished the book, that normally means I am annoyed with the author and consider her at fault (J. K. Rowling, I'm thinking of you). Oddly enough I am far more tolerant of TV shows that leave some things open to interpretation.
no subject
Date: 2012-03-06 12:28 pm (UTC)Whereas I would be more inclined to think it was my fault if I couldn't work it out. ;)
Astonished to hear you think Rowling falls into that category, though. I think she has the opposite fault - she spells everything out over and over and over....
She has other faults too, but I won't go into them. Suffice it to say, not an author I admire.
no subject
Date: 2012-03-06 03:37 pm (UTC)Well I don't think she foreshadowed character traits very well. But it's not so much the plot that she failed to spell out as the world building of how the Potterverse works. I am still left thinking at random moments 'but the economic basis for this society makes no sense!' and 'the spatial laws of hiding buildings are inconsistent!'
I would probably be willing to give her more slack if she hadn't made such obscene amounts of money out of a fairly flawed product.
no subject
Date: 2012-03-07 11:50 am (UTC)Yes, it does grate a little, especially as the whole thing is so derivative and has been done much better by other people.