kerravonsen | Entries tagged with writing

One of my favourite things to do in writing is to allow the characters to jump to logical but incorrect conclusions. I find it mischievously delightful. I have an evil smile while I am doing it. No, I do not toss in deliberate red herrings in order to confuse people. That isn't fun at all, that's cheating. What is delightful is putting all the clues there right in front of them, and have them not notice them, or misinterpret them, while not being stupid; making the characters stupid is no fun at all.

( Read more... )

So, writers, what are your favourite things to do in your writing?

Current Mood: cold
Crossposts: https://kerravonsen.livejournal.com/1194776.html

As you may or may not know, there's a HP fic I have writer's block on, due to having realized that the half-a-dozen chapters I wrote needed to be ripped up and thrown away, and the only thing kept was the prologue. Rather discouraging. But at least I still have a good prologue?

Anyway, this is a changing-history AU where a character goes back in time, not physically, but into their past self. There's a lot of these around in HP fandom for some reason. Anyway, the twist of this one is that it isn't one of the usual suspects (e.g. Harry or Hermione), but Draco Malfoy, going back to just before he starts Hogwarts.

It's been stalled for ages, as I said above. Got to thinking about it again. There's a bit of writing advice I've come across more than once: think of the worst thing that could happen to your protagonist, and then do that.
So I asked myself this question: "From Draco's point of view, what's the worst thing that could happen?"
The answer that immediately came to me was: "get sorted into Gryffindor".

What?

Not possible, surely?

But I really like the idea.

Of course Draco is a coward, we all know that. So he'd never get sorted into Gryffindor. The only idea I have is that maybe the Hat will take the fact that Draco travelled back to change history as evidence of Draco's courage (even though it could also be seen as cowardice, running away from everything as far away as possible). But even if the Hat thought that, Draco would, I expect, argue vehemently against it, and we know that the Hat does allow a person to choose if there's more than one House they are suited for. So I really really can't see that there's a plausible way for Draco to be sorted into Gryffindor.

So I ask y'all, do you have any ideas how to solve this problem?

Current Mood: thoughtful
Crossposts: http://kerravonsen.livejournal.com/1055503.html

Let's see...

I finished a couple of jewellery sets on the weekend, though I haven't scanned them in yet. They were mostly-finished and had been lying around waiting for clasps and matching earrings to be made, so there wasn't a lot to be done. I actually decided to keep one for myself, so the earrings in that case were clip-ons. (Yes, I do not have pierced ears. Mainly because I'm non-conformist.)

I realized this morning in the bus when I was working on another lacy crochet necklace... what the etymology of "necklace" probably is: "neck lace". Lace around the neck. From when lace collars were detachable and were swapped from dress to dress, because lace was so expensive.

Also finished on the weekend, a re-read of "Regann's Heart Over Mind, which I actually enjoyed less this time around, to my surprise. I mean, the good bits were still good (especially Hermione's family), but I noticed some of the annoying things more, such as the grammar mistakes. I found it also a bit frustrating that Hermione was off studying, out of the action, for most of the story. I don't mean that we didn't get her point-of-view, but I figure that the author didn't want to write any of the fighting-Voldemort stuff, so she moved Hermione out of the action.

I was also reminded of a particular compound word which makes me twitch, as the story used it repeatedly. What is it, you ask? The word is "ancient-looking". This isn't the only author who uses it; I've merely been reminded of it. Why do I frown on it? Because it's wishy-washy, lazy. I mean, what's wrong with using the perfectly good word "ancient"? If you add the "-looking" it weakens the adjective. It declares that you aren't certain whether the object is ancient or not, but you can't be bothered to figure out a better description. I mean, what is it about the object that makes it look ancient? Is it darkened with the patina of years? Is it worn down by the passage of many feet? Is it weathered by wind and rain? Is it cracked with much handling? Are the colours faded? What?

I can't think of any good reason to use "ancient-looking" at all.

(gets off soapbox)

Crossposts: http://kerravonsen.livejournal.com/981172.html

Last year, I wrote a story for the

sshg_exchange, as one does. I haven't posted it anywhere (apart from the original post at the Exchange) because I meant to revise it before I did. And I haven't done a lick of work on it in all that time. My chief problem is that the story needs expanding; there's a part that refers to Hermione and Severus writing journal entries in two linked journals, over the course of about a week. But not the actual contents of same. Obviously I need to write these journal entries, but I haven't a clue what to put in them. Help! Anyone have suggestions?

Current Mood: blank
Crossposts: http://kerravonsen.livejournal.com/941280.html

Phrases to avoid:

S/he wasn't stupid.

I've had to resist the temptation to use this one, quite recently. But really, the character's actions will show whether or not they are stupid, which makes the sentence redundant.

S/he wasn't naive.

Similarly for this one. Again, the next sentence will presumably describe in more detail why s/he wasn't naive, in which case that sentence isn't needed, or it won't, in which case you've got a problem because you're telling the reader something which you aren't willing to back up with character-action.(*)

S/he wasn't the type to...

Wishy-washy phrasing. Do, or do not, there is no "type". Well, unless one is talking about personality types but that isn't usually how a sentence like that is used.

(*) I was originally going to say "show, don't tell", but now I'm afraid to use that phrase since

altariel (I think it was her) jumped on me (well, on my icon that had that on it) because "it's all telling!"... that is, it's all storytelling.

I think there's two aspects to why "telling" is commonly frowned on.
1) Merely a matter of style. Narrative-heavy stories with strong authorial voice are terribly unfashionable nowadays (while they were extremely common a ways back). A more cinematic style is what is "in". For this, I can understand why the annoyance arises about the "no telling" stuff.
2) Less a matter of style, and more a matter of respecting the intelligence of your reader. To "show" gives the reader a chance to draw their own conclusions, rather than telling them what they ought to think. "Telling" can also be used to make assertions without evidence; for example, the author tells the reader that the character is clever, but the character keeps on acting stupidly. (I vaguely recall someone mentioning an example of this kind of thing from Twilight, but I can't remember what it was)

Current Mood: cold and tired
Crossposts: http://kerravonsen.livejournal.com/917087.html

The story that I wrote was Memoria Veritas, written for

dozmuffinxc.
I am grateful to the mods in their modly choosing, because one of my mild requests for writing was "It would be nice to be able to sink my teeth into something atmospheric/poetic and somewhat angsty."
While I'd been hoping for some other recipients in particular, and didn't consider this recipient at all, their first prompt was just the kind of thing I'd asked for...( there be spoilers in discussing the process of writing this story )

Current Mood: tired
Crossposts: http://kerravonsen.livejournal.com/842460.html

A varant of the meme that is going around:

If I made Cinderella, the audience would immediately be looking for a body in the coach. — Alfred Hitchcock

~~When I write a story,~~ If I wrote Cinderella, what would you immediately expect to find in it?

Current Mood: quixotic
Crossposts: http://kerravonsen.livejournal.com/834429.html

There is a common mistake in so many mysteries, whether classic or SF-themed (Original Trek was particularly guilty of this): that the thing they're looking at (whether it be a mysterious curse, an unknown poison, a strange lifeform, or something else) is COMPLETELY UNLIKE anything else they've ever encountered. The writer doesn't realize that (a) such a thing is extremely unlikely and (b) such uniqueness actually makes the mystery EASIER to solve, because rather than looking for a needle in a haystack, they're looking for an echidna in a haystack. The real thing that makes a mystery harder to solve is when the phenomenon is not unique, but when it is very similar to other things, so similar that it could have multiple causes. When the phenomenon is unique and one can't find out anything about it, it shouldn't be a cause for despair. The lack of data is data in itself, because it eliminates a whole slew of possibilities that one now doesn't need to waste time investigating.

Why do I say this? I say this from my experience as a computer programmer, which means I have decades of practice in detection - of bugs in computer programs.

Here are a few rules of thumb that I've learned over the years:

* The most common explanation is the most likely. Investigate that first.
* Contrariwise, don't assume that the most common explanation is what happened; actually investigate it.
* Witnesses are unreliable; they will tell you what they think caused the incident, not what actually happened. Skill in questioning witnesses is required.
* When doing experiments, one must reproduce the original problem, preferably in a similar but cut-down form, whether that be experiments on mice or specially-written test programs, or whatever else. Otherwise one can't be sure that the proposed solution is an actual "cure".