|
Junpei posted:Does anyone have a document or area full of small ideas, not big enough to make into full books but good enough to save an interesting line or a funny gag or a minor character for if you need it? "Keep a writing journal" is really common advice for anyone even halfway serious about writing (or forgetful).
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2024 02:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 14:43 |
|
|
Congratulations, General, that's awesome! Hope it's helpful.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2024 15:47
|
|
|
Milkfred E. Moore posted:The year is 2061 and the world is ending. Disagree with DropTheAnvil; first sentence is fine, sets up genre and plot. Maybe "It's 2061 and..." quote:Sabra Kasembe, erstwhile savior of the world, hones her mind and body for her prophesied apocalypse, unsure whether her dreams paint her as a humane champion or blood-soaked harbinger. Champion of what? "Harbinger" looks weird without an object; I think I'd rephrase. "Erstwhile" seems tautological. What does "honing her mind and body for her prophesied apocalypse" mean? It sounds like she's training to end the world this time. quote:When an explosion rips through downtown Geneva, her investigation brings her face to face with none other than her nemesis-turned-ally Jack Harper. "Downtown" sounds out of place; how about "central"? Cut "face to face" and "none other than". That's nitpicks, but the second paragraph is awkwardly phrased and doesn't make much sense (NB I haven't read the first book): quote:But Harper comes with a warning. There's an insidious threat aimed at the heart of Sabra's lover, a vast paramilitary conspiracy of living legends and extant saviors. If Harper is her ally now, shouldn't "but" be "and"? General Battuta already noted the dangling modifier, but the subordinate clause is simultaneously overstuffed with information ("vast", "paramilitary", "living legends and extant saviors") and vague (living legends of what? Saviors of what? What's the conspiracy trying to do, and why is is so uninterested in her lungs?). Also, reconsider "extant". quote:To stop them, Sabra must unleash Harper upon an unsuspecting Geneva, even if it risks flirting with the apocalypse that simmers in her wake. "risks flirting" is a tautology here. Also, maybe cut "that simmers in her wake" or change it to "...in her future" - sounds like the apocalypse already happened. quote:Because Sabra must hone her soul to save Revenant's life no matter the cost--or Sekhmet will light her raging funeral pyre in the heart of the Functioning World. Why "because"? What's "honing her soul"? Who's Revenant, and why is she in danger? I assume Sabra's lover, but it's muddled. Who's Sekhmet? Who's the antecedent of "her"? What's the Functioning World? Also, it looks like Sabra's the protagonist, and the story is about saving Revenant, but the plot description makes Harper look like the person actually doing everything. And there's a lot of apocalypse talk - is it going to pay off?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2024 14:18
|
|
|
Waffle! posted:I have a chapter coming up where two characters split off to find more info. I'm thinking of just doing the MC's side of what happens, because she's the MC and all, but I'm tempted to do a chapter after that from the 2nd character's side. Or have the MC get her info early and then go looking for her friend and finding out how he gets info out of people. (Not as nicely.) Or I could write from both perspectives in the same chapter, if I don't make it confusing? I need more than 3 pages per chapter like I've been doing lately. IMO (as someone who generally dislikes POV shifts, mainly because they're poorly done) the answer is "yes, if you have a good reason". In my opinion, POV changes usually make the story bittier and less connected, less satisfying and interesting; and they don't usually add enough to the story to justify themselves. And slows the plot, sometimes (such as here). You can work around those problems, though. E.g. M. John Harrison's Light has three alternating points of view in strict pattern, so the reader expects POV shifts from early on. Same with V., Ulysses, or R. F. Kuang's Babel (which has three brief but consequential POV shifts) - it's all part of the structure. If you're doing this, you can have the POVs reflect each other and other fancy stuff like that. Contrariwise, I thought this was the big flaw with The Moonstone, which is one narrative for about half the novel and then a grab bag of other POVs. Imagine yourself justifying the POV change to the reader, because you are. If you can, sure. Why not try it out? It's just a draft. You can cut it.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2024 14:14
|
|