Timewaster's Guide Archive
Local Authors => Writing Group => Topic started by: cvgurau on October 12, 2008, 08:22:01 AM
-
The only Writing Excuses forum I could find was for writing prompts, and since this isn't that, I thought I'd start a thread here.
I've been listening to WE pretty faithfully since quite near the beginning (the BIC HOK and writer's block episodes were especially helpful, I think), but one thing I keep hoping to hear covered is how to write an action scene. I haven't read Dan or Howard's stuff (at least, not recently, in Howard's case), but I know Brandon writes some spectacular action scenes. It's always something I've had trouble with, and when I can do it, it's usually in the heat of inspiration. Later, when that flash has passed, I go to review the scene, and I'll either love it or hate it, but either way, I won't really remember how I did it. I'd like to come to a point where I can write an exciting, convincing fight/chase scene without having to be under the thrall of the muse.
Cris.
-
Oooh, I agree! I could really use a bit of insight on how to make action scenes actually feel like action.
-
This topic goes here. (http://www.timewastersguide.com/forum/index.php?board=20.0) But I agree, that would be a good one.
-
Oooh, I agree! I could really use a bit of insight on how to make action scenes actually feel like action.
Same here! I'd like to be able to avoid the: up, up, down,down, L, R, L, R, type of action scene.
-
For me I've found I like to write very visceral action scenes; I like to get into the technicalities of parry and riposte, fleche and remise. I'm not sure if thats a good thing or not, but its fun to do, and I would greatly appreciate a topic like this on writing excuses.
-
Karen and I want to hear a podcast about what (not) to do when you're creating a fake language in your book.
-
oooh. hey, that's a good idea too. Those fake languages are tricky. . . especially if you've never learned another language, so you only have one language to use as a model for how to make a language (And its a rather convoluted language, too)
-
I'd really like the action podcast, along with the language one. Although it would be nice if they did a podcast on how to put a convincing romance, or even just understanding women as characters. that'd be kinda funny too ;)
-
I've written action, and kind of enjoyed it. I discovered that the movies and TV I've seen really have an effect on what I write.
The thing I would love to hear explored is POV. When I was in school, it was Point of View, and described who in a paragraph is moving or talking or thinking. But now when I write things and take them to my writing group, or have criticism from someone else, they seem to be using the term differently than I understand.
Have things changed? Does POV mean something different, or more than it used to? Up to now, when I get critiques about POV, I don't fully understand what they are trying to get me to fix. I feel like I felt in 8th grade when I first encountered Algebra. None of it makes sense yet.
-
I have a little trouble myself, but I've found that there seems to be a delicate balance between the details of individual actions and the scene over all (and unfortunately it's still very subjective to the reader as well). The only guidelines I've gleaned from reading are:
1. Keep an active voice throughout the scene.
2. Use very concise descriptions, but give enough information to:
a. picture individual battles (especially if it is associated with an action that will affect plot)
b. feel what the character is feeling (especially if it might affect the character's personal viewpoint)
3. Avoid obvious transitions to another part of the battle scene, "on the other side of the field...", just go there, but use paragraph structure to indicate a change instead. Obvious transitions slow the action.
4. Say enough to give some feel for how long the battle was - there should be a progression in the type of language used. As the scene progresses, describe how the characters are tiring. You may have to rearrange the order your individual action scenes to convey it properly (but don't lose continuity - if one scene has to happen in order for another to happen, make sure it's in order :).
Just my amateur$.02,
Jinxed
-
I don't remember if they'd done this, but I'd like a podcast about agents.
What they do. Is it more beneficial for a writer to have one? How to get an agent.
-
One podcast I'd love to hear would be one on Brandon's essay about magic systems, but I'm not sure how the others would be able to contribute to that, having not read their works. (yet)
EDIT: Never mind. I found the one they did about that. I should probably listen to it.
-
Some topics I'd like to see discussed.
- How to kill off characters so your reader actually cares (but not so much that they put down the book to mourn).
- How to rewrite and keep your sanity.
- How to write when holding down another job and maintaining a life.
- Knowing when something is ready to be sent off to submission.
- Artwork and illustrations--when do they help and when do they hurt your writing?
- Conventions and conferences--how to get the most out of them and which ones should not be missed.
- Outlining and notes (I think you've touched on this before).
- Writing from life and writing what you know.
- Writing and mental health--how to keep both.
- Ratings, censorship, and keeping it clean.
-
I'd love to see a podcast on pacing.
-
I like to see a discussion about magic systems, but one thing occurs to me. Magic is supposed to be magic. You know magic thinking and illogic. No I get the idea of coherent systems of "alternate" sciences and the "any science, sufficiently advanced. . ." But, done responsibly, I'd like to see magic be magical more often. A pod-cast that discussed these issues without just being an apologetic for the current Tor/Baen stance would be nice.
-
Magic that's just magic? Read Guy Gavriel Kay's Sarantine Mosaic duology.
-
Sounds interesting, But I would still like to hear a formal discussion on the issues.
-
Hasn't it already been discussed in season 1 episode 14? I seem to remember them talking about systems that have a lot of rules as well as ones that don't and it's just magic.
Basically I'm not a fan of "just magic" because it means the author can cheat and do anything he wants—there's no dramatic tension and it's not very interesting to read.
-
I don't know if it has been discussed, I'm way too new to WE and TWG in general.
But you have a point. I'm not talking about the author using magical thinking, just his characters. :P Yeah there have to be limitations. But having an entire science that is taught to the reader and has to hang together seems excessive.
-
How developed your magic system needs to be to make good fiction depends largely on how much your main characters will be using it to solve problems. If they're not going to use the magic much at all, it doesn't need to be developed much at all. But if they're going to be using it extensively, it should make as much sense to the reader as it does to the characters, or near enough sense that when the characters use it to solve a problem the reader's disbelief is still suspended.
A lot of things go back to the "surprising, yet inevitable" goal of writing. If things are explained too much, the surprise is gone and the reader won't be excited by your climax. If things are explained too little, everything's a surprise and the reader won't know where the heck you got your climax resolution from.
-
Here's a link (http://www.writingexcuses.com/2008/05/12/writing-excuses-episode-14-magic-systems-and-their-rules/) to the episode Ookla mentioned.
Most of the time in this episode, if I recall correctly, is spent on rule-based magic systems, but they do mention more "magical" magic systems.
I think the crux of their discussion came down to Sanderson's first law: The more you use magic to fix problems, the more the reader has to know about how the magic works.
(Yes, I've inverted it. Shush; it fits my purposes for this post. :P)
So in a book like Lord of the Rings, which our podcasters cited, we don't know how the magic works, and it doesn't matter, because it's not used to solve problems. (The one time Gandalf steps in to use magic and take down the Balrog, he croaks.) Having a magic system that is "just magic" isn't an automatic tension killer; if the author doesn't use it as a plot doctor, it's not a problem.
-
I like the term "magic bullet" but that is my assertion as well.
It seems to me if you avoid magic bullets and also don't make the magic practitioner the pov or focus point for limited om. then you could make a more magical magic. The author could avoid issues by constructing rules, but never explicitly citing them. Personally I think killing Gandalf takes the form of a magic bullet, because it makes it easier to push the fellowship out into the forest without any real protection. This is exacerbated by bringing him back as "the white". So, in my opinion you can end up with magic bullets by suppressing magic as easily as encouraging it. In fact Gandalf's lack of magical support makes it harder to accept Sauron and Saruman as real threats.
-
I would love to see a podcast on short story forms.