|
Chillmatic posted:Yeah you're really loving out of line here, buddy. How loving DARE you come in here with this poo poo?? I really appreciate you taking the time to help me; for someone who claims to be a writer I'm pretty poo poo at research. This puts me on the right track, though; hopefully I can find my way from here. Can't get better if you don't try, right? But just to assure you guys, I was never planning on learning about drugs by taking them. In fact, for some reason I was kind of afraid that I was going to get one douche giving me a whole "You can't write what you don't know, so go visit the wrong side of the tracks and bring back an 8-ball" spiel. So another thank you to everyone for putting my mind at ease. Y'all are cool. When I get this thing on the market and you crucify me as a hack, I'll still think y'all are cool.
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 04:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 09:12 |
|
|
crabrock posted:I edited it out already but it was something like: "just make sure this doesn't trace back to me." QUICK LEFTY IT IS THE ROZZERS LET'S SCARPER OUTTA HERE sebmojo fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Jun 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 04:47
|
|
|
crabrock posted:I edited it out already but it was something like: "just make sure this doesn't trace back to me." Why would someone who does crime not request it's not traced back to them? Or is just a little cheesy? Please enlighten me with your criminal wisdom.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 06:02
|
|
|
PoshAlligator posted:Why would someone who does crime not request it's not traced back to them? Or is just a little cheesy? My guess would be if you commit a crime with someone then you either trust them enough that this can go unsaid or you trust them so little that you're fixin' to kill 'em when you're done.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 11:00
|
|
|
After watching shitloads of The Wire, either it should be assumed/understood that's the case or no involved party knows what their doing and you're just drawing attention to that. Edit: Anyone, hypothetically, have experience here?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 11:07
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:After watching shitloads of The Wire, either it should be assumed/understood that's the case or no involved party knows what their doing and you're just drawing attention to that. The three of us were in a car, all high as poo poo, while the cop was running a check on the driver's license. The owner of the car said "when that cop searches this car, the joint in the glovebox can't be mine. I'm on probation." So I took the hit for my friend. Before he said it, I wouldn't have thought about it. I didn't spare him out of some nobility. He's the only one who had a car. If he went to jail, we wouldn't have a ride anymore. If I got busted with it, it would be a first offense and I'd go on probation. Probably. As it turned out, the arresting officer never showed up to court and the case was dropped. Go Modern Judicial System! magnificent7 fucked around with this message at 14:32 on Jun 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 14:30
|
|
|
crabrock posted:I edited it out already but it was something like: "just make sure this doesn't trace back to me." Just make sure it doesn't trace back to this thread, k?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 15:16
|
|
|
Augh goddammit. A narrator tells about seeing a car accident involving a driver and a hobo. With a rednecky southern accent: quote:When a car screeched at the red light, I looked around in time to see an old bum launched through the air like a wet towel. Is that sentence understandable? I've jumped from "He" being the bum who got hit, to "He" being the guy who hit the bum, in the same sentence. But, it conveys what happened, right? From a technical, logistical and followable standpoint, should I re-word this? It's a story being told by a simpleton who ain't so much teh smarts, but I STILL need to be clear that two people are in this sentence, the driver and the bum who got hit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
magnificent7 posted:Augh goddammit. You could eliminate "he" referring to two people with a little rephrasing: He hit the ground, and the driver jumped out and ran over to him but there was nothing to be done, the bum was coughing blood out onto the asphalt. The bigger problem is that you've got 4 sentences run together in a single sentence, with two ands, a but, and a missing semi-colon. There's also nothing about this particular bit of narration that says redneck, southern, or simpleton to me. It's clear enough what's happening, sure, but it's nothing beyond a bland series of events.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
magnificent7 posted:Augh goddammit. It sounds bad and should be rewritten. He hit the ground [a little description would be nice here]. The driver jumped out and ran over, but there was nothing to be done. The bum was coughing blood out onto the asphalt.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 03:26
|
|
|
Oh you guys are good. drat. I have so much to lern. Thanks. But... a country boy would never say "there was nothing to be done". It's hard writing in a vernacular... too much and it's overkill. Too little and it's unbelievable. I'm struggling on this one. In the previous sentence I say "the old bum launched through the air like a wet towel". Adding another description for the landing is just self-indulgent at that point. This is where cursewords really fit the bill. quote:He hit the ground like a motherfucker magnificent7 fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Jun 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 03:53
|
|
|
magnificent7 posted:I'm struggling on this one. In the previous sentence I say "the old bum launched through the air like a wet towel". Adding another description for the landing is just self-indulgent at that point. It may be that "like a wet towel" is an extremely inaccessible metaphor. It just sounds like you are really clunkily avoiding "ragdoll". I've personally never seen or imagined a wet towel being flung or launched or carving a graceful arc through the air. If you want to maximise the value of the injury and accident you can skip right from the screech at the traffic lights to the man hitting the ground. Describing a horrible impact is going to be as effective as over-describing his flight and landing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 05:25
|
|
|
Quick line edit:quote:When a car screeched at the red light, I looked around in time to see an old bum I think one of the main issues with this sample is that you're distancing the reader from the action. What I mean is, generally speaking you have two options when you describe action: 1. You can tell me about how your narrator 'sees' an old bum launching through the air 2...or you can just tell me the old bum launched through the air. The second option is usually the stronger one. I try to avoid bringing the narrator between the action and the reader whenever possible, unless there's a specific reason to want to involve the fact that they see or hear or smell whatever the thing in question is. In general, the more words you have like 'seen, saw, heard, smelled, felt' etc, the more distance there is between the reader and the action. "I smelled the scent of rosemary as the stew began to cook." vs. "The scent of rosemary filled the room as the stew began to cook." Anyway, here's a quick and dirty rendition of what I'd do with what you posted; purely subjective of course. (I'm not in love with the wet towel simile, but let's stick with it for now) quote:A car screeched through the red light and then slammed into an old bum, tossing him five feet into the air like a wet towel. Notice I opted for stronger verbs--slammed, smashed, stumbled, coughed, etc--this gives the reader a more visceral mental image. I also added 'five feet into the air' to give a better idea of just how hard this guy had been hit. Also, I removed the narrator from the scene completely because it didn't feel necessary. But it's up to you if you think that strengthens the scene or no. Sometimes you'll want to draw attention to your narrator's interpretation of things, but often times it just gets in the way (especially, I think, in quick action scenes like what you posted.) Anyway  hope that helps!
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
When I get home tonight I'm going to throw a wet towel around my bathroom to see what it looks like when a vagrant gets struck by a car.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 06:14
|
|
|
Chillmatic posted:Quick line edit: Thanks for this. The whole story revolves around his interaction with deaths, and that's where I'm torn; put him into the event, or remove him from it so the event itself has more impact. When I take the second more powerful approach, the shift in dialect is jarring - it pulls me out of the narration and puts attention on the writer, does that make sense? But I know I can push the description better. Thanks. And this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuDYHTSmxNk That's got all the blood splatter and the formless attributes I had in mind, but loses the part of him flinging like that in the air without any real form or structure until he connects with the ground again. That was what I was going for. This bum - he's got layers of coats and hair and beard, arms and legs flapping in the air. Is it that so few people would know what a wet towel is like? Yeah so maybe I'm a little bit too married to the phrase. Kill my children, I get it. magnificent7 fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Jun 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 14:58
|
|
|
magnificent7 posted:Thanks for this. The whole story revolves around his interaction with deaths, and that's where I'm torn; put him into the event, or remove him from it so the event itself has more impact. When I take the second more powerful approach, the shift in dialect is jarring - it pulls me out of the narration and puts attention on the writer, does that make sense? But I know I can push the description better. Why do you think that backing the character away from the action gives the action more impact? That is...backwards. Readers experience the story through the characters: when the character is in the action, the reader is in the action. When the character is distant, the reader is distant. quote:This bum - he's got layers of coats and hair and beard, arms and legs flapping in the air. See, this is a fine visual image that you have, but it is not conveyed, not even remotely, by the phrase "like a wet towel." Why? Well, wet towels don't have layers of coats and hair and beard, arms and legs flapping in the air. They are fairly solid and limp, really, if the reader bothers to imagine one. Honestly "flying through the air like a wet towel" isn't really a phrase that conjures any strong image in my mind, and I pass over it as just an overwrought simile. Be careful with similes and metaphors. They are exciting rhetorical devices, and we can feel rather clever about them as writers, but you have to make extra sure that they do the job: communicating with the reader. Sometimes (often) straightforward description is the better option.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 18:33
|
|
|
Dr. Kloctopussy posted:Be careful with similes and metaphors. They are exciting rhetorical devices, and we can feel rather clever about them as writers, but you have to make extra sure that they do the job: communicating with the reader. Sometimes (often) straightforward description is the better option.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 18:53
|
|
|
Now, a sound like a wet towel hitting something is an interesting simile for me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 00:18
|
|
|
SurreptitiousMuffin posted:http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3527428&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=85#post416616672 What are the rules on a narrator giving that statement though? I like when a first-person narrative tells you a story (flashback? anecdote?) and uses bad grammar because that's who they are. If your character ain't so good on the wording, doesn't proper grammer pull the reader out of the experience? I don't mean non-stop horrible talking, I mean if blue-collar Joe bitches about his room mate, I tend to want to write: "ever since we lived here, John will go to the store every thursday picking up those scratch-off lotto tickets." instead of "ever since we've lived here, John has gone to the store every thursday to pick up scratch-off lotto tickets". Each one fits, right? Or am I doing that exact thing you loathe?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
I tend to say anything goes in speech, and I'm willing to accept anything. I can't think of anything off the top of my head, but I have seen some good writing do some pretty crazy stuff with speech to make it obvious it is the speech of an actual person. If it worries you people won't notice and will think it's bad I suppose you could always make it more obvious?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 18:26
|
|
|
PoshAlligator posted:I tend to say anything goes in speech, and I'm willing to accept anything. I think No Country For Old Men does a great job of writing out the redneck inner voice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
magnificent7 posted:My goal is to help the reader hear the narrator's voice. If the reader isn't familiar with the southern dialect, I know it's just in the way, like when I try to read Scottish or Irish narratives. It becomes hurdles instead of helpful. But if SurreptitiousMuffin is saying the words are flat out wrong and get in the way of the story, then that's my own ignorance of writing and not some skillful dialect thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 18:53
|
|
|
magnificent7 posted:I get this. People slip in and out of correct tense in casual speech all the time. If it were me, I'd say something like: Ever since we been living here, John'll go to the store every Thursday to pick up those scratch-off lotto tickets. But it depends on the particular voice of the narrator, and whether this is dialog or pure narration. In this random example, what is being conveyed is that the narrator and John currently live somewhere, and for as long as they have lived there John has gone down to get scratch tickets. I think with first person narration/dialog you can do all sorts of fun things with the way you describe time/how events relate to each other in time. There are also other cues you can give that you're not just being grammatically challenged. In this example, I'd drop the contraction from "we've", and made "John will" into "john'll," to give the overall impression that the person telling the story/talking isn't terribly concerned with being an adroit speaker/narrator. But yeah, I don't think Muffin's point was about experimenting with narration. People have a LOT of issues with tense, or jumping around character perspectives in 3rd person limited. There's definitely not as much room for experimenting with voice, but a lot of stories work better when the narration is, as Muffin said, invisible. IMO the only real rule is "don't suck," follow that rule and you can do anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 19:08
|
|
|
Sitting Here posted:IMO the only real rule is "don't suck," follow that rule and you can do anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
My #1 tip for speech is to just write it out how the voices in your head are saying it. That's we all do... right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
So I have this problem where sometimes I write for myself. Like after I write something I think "well, people aren't going to like that." My last thunderdom is an example of this. Both the judges found it confusing and awkward, but that's the mood I was in. I'm still don't feel bad for doing it. I can write more clearly, and I do so when I want to, but I usually get bored. I still have to go back and edit out a lot of weird lines. Help.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
crabrock posted:So I have this problem where sometimes I write for myself. Like after I write something I think "well, people aren't going to like that." My last thunderdom is an example of this. Both the judges found it confusing and awkward, but that's the mood I was in. I'm still don't feel bad for doing it. I can write more clearly, and I do so when I want to, but I usually get bored. I still have to go back and edit out a lot of weird lines. Help. I'll be honest - I'm not sure what exactly you're looking for when you ask for "help" because I don't see how what you're describing is a problem. There's no hard-cut rule that says everything you write has to be something for other people to read. Sometimes saying "gently caress it" and writing whatever the hell you please, with the innate knowledge/purpose of never sharing it with anyone else, can be beneficial both from a learning perspective and a creative one. You don't want to do it all the time of course, but there's nothing wrong with taking a break and just writing for yourself every once and a while, even if just to get the gears cranking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
crabrock posted:So I have this problem where sometimes I write for myself. Like after I write something I think "well, people aren't going to like that." My last thunderdom is an example of this. Both the judges found it confusing and awkward, but that's the mood I was in. I'm still don't feel bad for doing it. I can write more clearly, and I do so when I want to, but I usually get bored. I still have to go back and edit out a lot of weird lines. Help. Didn't you just answer your own question? Four steps: -You write something that's in your head out (as fast as you can), -You wait, -You read it back and see if it effectively evokes the concept you had at the time, -You make it work. I wouldn't worry too much - people get into just as much if not more pain at the other end of the spectrum - trying to make everything perfect, and right first time. That's no fun at all, and will likely crush your great idea between brain and page.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 22:51
|
|
|
I have a question about publishing a story we wrote in the TD. Some editors won't touch it if it's been posted online already. Is it safe to say leave them alone, or is it worth re-writing the story and submitting it? And stop laughing. I'm asking hypothetically.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
edit: I posted incorrect information. Ignore this.
angel opportunity fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Jun 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
magnificent7 posted:I have a question about publishing a story we wrote in the TD. Some editors won't touch it if it's been posted online already. Is it safe to say leave them alone, or is it worth re-writing the story and submitting it? If you are concerned, what's stopping you from editing your story out of the post?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
Hey CC goons, is there a non-fiction thread around here somewhere? I couldn't seem to find one. I just got a book deal with McGraw-Hill and wanted some advice about the whole editorial process and such.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 06:24
|
|
|
Noah posted:If you are concerned, what's stopping you from editing your story out of the post? Nobody's approached me and said "shame you published that because we want to give you a bajillion dollars."
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 15:19
|
|
|
HATE TROLL TIM posted:Hey CC goons, is there a non-fiction thread around here somewhere? I couldn't seem to find one. I just got a book deal with McGraw-Hill and wanted some advice about the whole editorial process and such. Since this is a humor forum, the writing subset of the community is a bit nichey. Your best bet is the forums over at absolutewrite.com. There are plenty of people over there that have problem gone through the exact processes you will go through.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 14:07
|
|
|
I love this guy's blog. He writes. A lot. And writes a lot about writing. A lot. http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2013/06/25/50-rantypants-snidbits-of-random-writing-storytelling-advice/
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 15:29
|
|
|
magnificent7 posted:I love this guy's blog. He writes. A lot. And writes a lot about writing. A lot. Chuck Wendig is my goddamn hero and I'm glad I'm not the only one who loves his blog and his writing. I still need to pick up The Blue Blazes but I'm sure it's great.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 16:24
|
|
|
I like his blog, but isn't Chuck Wendig the dude that self-published, then once he got an actual deal with a publishing house went around poo poo-talking self publication? Doesn't invalidate what he has to say at all, but I've got kind of mixed feelings about the dude himself. Unless I am thinking of somebody else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
He doesn't really poo poo-talk it. He lays out the advantages and disadvantages, showing how it works better for some writers than others. He does the same thing when explaining regular book publishing, too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
He's really good at providing insight on both platforms... advantages to both and why you should't set your sights on one and flat-out ignore the other one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 09:12 |
|
|
Ah ok, must be thinking of someone else then. There's somebody that got started by self-pubbing, got a contract, then turned around and poo poo all over self-pubbing and was basically making fun of people that did it. Glad it wasn't Wendig since he's a lot of fun to read.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 01:04
|
|