The Review Club Forum Discussion of Leah's The Seduc..

Discussion of Leah's The Seduction of Timu Maarinen

Belle,

Nice to meet you too.

I appreciate all the work you did on that with my over-grown sentences. Some of your alternatives definitely point the way to improvements. In a few cases you actually made the expression more passive, rather than less -- but all that painstaking work is to your credit in any case.

There are times when passive voice is appropriate -- I don't actually go that far, really, but I use the It was and There was construction when I'm in Timu's thoughts -- that's often the way we think, isn't it? I describe the Karula entrance hall with those phrases because he is passive at that moment -- kind of stuck, not sure what's going to happen, and a little overwhelmed by the luxury.

I don't mind a long, complex sentence in and of itself, but am willing to re-arrange things if structure interferes with clarity. But I won't sacrifice rhythm and the way the image emerges just to make sentences shorter. I think your choices for the description of Aulia in the study hall do that. I do want to re-work that sentence, but it has to retain the connectedness of the image, because that's the way Timu sees it, all at once -- not the room separately from Aulia -- and it's the way I want readers to see it.

Thanks for reading so carefully -- I'm especially interested in discussing character and plot, and, as they develop, themes -- just a heads-up on awkward structure is really all I need -- I can mix a sentence any number of ways, if I see the need of it -- sometimes it takes other eyes to help me see the need.

Leah

Leah - I really enjoyed that chapter. Thanks for explaining your POV on Timu.

I think I know why extra long sentences bother me. I don't know how old you are, but if you're in my generation, you might have been taught to read like I was. We had to take turns reading out loud every day, and were constantly corrected in technique. It was drilled into me that I couldn't take a breath until I came to a period at the end of a sentence. To this day, even reading silently, I do that. With some of your sentences, I turned blue and headed for the floor. I realize since my school days (just after fire had been invented) things have changed. I know punctuation and capitalization rules certainly have.

I've hired three different professional editors for my published novels. NONE of them completely agreed on rules of grammar, punctuation, etc. I was ready to throw them in a locked room and see who survived the argument. *grin*

I hope, as I watch the people in this group, that I'll become a better reviewer as well as writer. As you can see, I take both seriously. Thanks for being such a great first 'victim'.

Thank you, Julie!

I've been around the block about "the tower bells were ringing" with someone else before this. I see it as an event in time issue, rather than a passive voice issue. "Were ringing" describes an ongoing event, and that's all.

I've also already discussed the occaisonal necessity of somewhat passive constructions. Where I use It was, There was, it's generally because I'm in the character's thoughts, so it's equivalent to dialogue. It's a sort of pointer that we're thinking along with the character. I'll look for places where I do it where I don't mean to.

If "then" isn't active enough (again, it's really a time marker) how about "until"?

I think it's possible to feel a little panicked, but I'll think about it.

I can see your point about "bright" being not a particularly striking adjective, but I don't want everything to be striking. I'll think on that too.

As to Timu's character -- of course he evolves. He's already changing -- the story's in two parts, and by the time we get to the end of "Lady Aulia's Choice" he's undergone more than one transformation. Aulia changes too, though less dramatically.

The story, setting, themes, etc. may not be quite your cup of tea, of course. That's cool. I'm afraid it is all rather old-fashioned, and not really fast-paced -- more reflective -- though that doesn't make it un-dramatic, necessarily.

As I've said in other threads, every kind of story, if it's done well, will find it's audience.

Your comments are helpful -- there are always things I can't see, that need tweaking, and even if I don't agree on specific solutions, a heads-up is always welcome.

Belle --

I see what you mean about early training affecting taste. Please, breathe!

I've read and enjoyed the later novels of Henry James, so I guess I'm pretty thoroughly innured to the interminable sentence. I really am trying to get myself under control, though, and I need all the help I can get.

My primary goal in the story of Timu and Aulia is to create a memorable experience -- memorable characters and world for them to act in -- an interesting story, of course, but not necessarily a page-turner. Something to live in for awhile, and go back to -- something to savor. It's the introductory book in a series about the telepathic diplomats of Vaaseli, Ravella, Albrahar, and Xanthia -- their main concerns are political and philosophical -- and of course personal. The characters are what's most important to me, ultimately.

I'm looking forward to reading your work too.

Bill,

Thank you so much.

Those missing emphasis italics are just the result of me getting tired of fiddling with the formatting here. All the ones you mention are in my own "manuscript."

My dashes -- laziness. Except in dialogue (and, by extension, in thoughts) I'm tempted to use them to show the way people pause between phrases, instead of the conventional semi-colons and periods. I've gone through many pages of text and changed such passages, and will probably change all of them, eventually. It might be a crackpot notion anyway. I just don't think that when we speak we use punctuation at all (unless we're Victor Borge.) I guess my writing is too conventional in the main for me to do experimental stuff like that.

I never seem to have to think very much about dialogue and interaction between characters. It just comes to me. And often the story can change because of something that "comes to me" that way -- characters develop new significance, take off in new directions I hadn't foreseen. The story gets richer.

Exposition is tougher. In this piece I'm a little concerned about balance between exposition and dialogue. There's quite a bit of exposition -- partly because I was struggling to keep this short, at one time. So be prepared to comment on that balance issue, and on weightiness of exposition. I don't want it to get bogged down.

Leah

Kim, thanks for the very encouraging review. I've been making myself get tough about long sentences. I hope every installment of this work shows it. I wrote it over a year ago, and hadn't really revisited it seriously for months, but when I decided to extend it into a complete novel I knew I'd have to revise, so it would match what I'm doing now.

I've tried not to make the dialogue a dump for backstory -- it also illustrates character and developing relationships. It does have to serve to set up later situations, though. I think some of the dumpiness can be resolved with further attention to sentence structure, actually.

Thanks again.

Leah

Kim, I forgot to answer the question about formal speech patterns. Originally I used it to distinguish between Ravellan and Vaaselian language and culture. Though when representatives of the different Alliance nations get together there's some interchangibility of which languages they speak, of course I'm confined to English. I've made the assumption that Vaaselians have a more formal language pattern, whatever language they're speaking, and Ravellans are more informal -- because their cultures are, respectively, conservative and liberal. Albraharan and Xanthian tend to be extremely polite languages -- not as stiff as Vaaselian, but not as careless as Ravellan. All you see in this story is Vaaselian culture, so you don't notice the contrast. But it becomes very important in the next book, and might even be noticeable at the end of this one.
There is one Vaaselian who uses contractions and more casual speech, but he's only off-stage in this book. Later in life, when he lives abroad for a time and becomes truly multicultural, Timu develops more casual patterns too.

That makes sense about the language. I just wasn't sure if it was on purpose or not. Are you worried it will make the characters sound all the same? Timu has his own voice, but that is through narration. But it may make the other characters seem cookie cutter. I'm not saying that they do, but you might want to watch out for it.

Moving this thread up

Moving this thread up

Kim,
Thanks for the review of Chapter Three part one --

I condensed Timu's initial reform because originally this was meant to be shorter -- 15,000-25,000 word novella. I've thought about dramatizing it, but I don't know that I feel it's necessary. For one thing, it happens quickly because he's highly motivated, on several fronts -- he really cares about his sister, Aulia is very determined to help him, and Rilsa's driving him crazy. Do I really have to come out and say that? I do have to show what he was like before -- that's the whole point of the story, because his real strengths are from that period, and he's going to have to go back to them. He'll be in conflict over this throughout the story, so it's can't really be pigeon-holed as "coming of age." It's a little more complex than that. He's not fully in his new character yet -- he's got the veneer -- in some ways that's all he'll ever have, but it gets much thicker. Besides, that's how he and Rilsa meet, how Elian begins to get through to him, how he gets involved with Aulia -- that's the way it happened.

I have pared down unnecessarily long sentences. I don't find the ones you noted too convoluted -- not everything needs to be streamlined. I'll say it again, for the benefit of whoever reads this thread: this is a reflective story, without an action-centered plot. I try to make language match mood and the psychological state of the characters. When I do something passive, it's for a reason, usually. Not always, so I don't really mind it being pointed out -- but in this review I didn't find anything that I agreed really needed changing. The "with her hands on his arms" could be altered, but I don't think it's crucial.

I will look at further ways to clarify, but I won't chop up rhythms I'm happy with because there are too many words in a particular sentence. Most of the books I admire would probably fail your wordiness standard. A matter of taste, perhaps.

I wonder if this response is going to inspire another big debate about what kind of writing is most likely to get published, and sell? Maybe I should nip that in the bud by making another pronouncement: I don't believe in that stuff, and/or don't care about it. A good story, well told, is what I care about. It may not appeal to all readers, but it has to be right according to it's own internal standard. If it's good (I've said this before) it'll find its audience.

(Actually, I wouldn't mind having a debate about this stuff -- if I can get plenty of players and get them really riled up, without anyone getting ticked off.)

Thanks again!

Quote:


Okay, I am getting tried of writers saying that if their writing is good it will find an audience. So I suppose it will also find a publisher, and a book deal?

That is naive thinking. How will readers find Timu if he doesn't get published because the first paragraph doesn't grab an editors attention? Or because he seems too old and clinical?

You can live in the fantasy of writer's perfection, or you can step up to the plate. If you want an audience, you must cater to that audience and the market. If you want to write nice little novels that never seen beyond wc.org or urbis, then do so, but don't disregard what Kim, or anyone else says about the story, because you do a disservice to yourself and the rest of us that take the time to read and review.

Thanks, Julie, for taking a swing!

What the devil is the market? It's flooded with sex-and-violence vampire stories, at the moment. What do people like me, who actually enjoy the "classics", have to read? John le Carre, Salman Rushdie, let's see -- I really can't think at the moment -- there aren't very many current practioners who have satisfied me lately. I'm not into the pretensions of most literary fiction -- I just want a good story, thoughtfully told. I like the fantasy genre, but a lot of it's incredibly stale and predictable, even when it's well-crafted. I'm trying to write something within the genre that's fresh and different, that might even transcend it.

Grabbing the reader's attention -- I don't need to be taken by the throat or even by the sleeve in order to get interested in a story, and I know I'm not alone.

Most of the criticism of what I'm writing has to do with length of sentences. I concede on some of them -- the rhythm and all is just as good if they're broken up into two or three, of no more than three clauses each. But some of this business is just cutting words for the sake of cutting, and isn't provided with adequate reasons, let alone alternatives that are actually improvements. If the reasons are good I'll make all manner of changes, from trivial to massive. I've rewritten entire chapters of my first "completed" novel because of slowness, lack of engagement with characters, etc. I've also reworked sentences that readers found cumbersome, even when I didn't, if doing so improved clarity without damaging mood.

Bill has said something about trusting the author. I'd like to say something about trusting the reader -- first the agent, who probably has a damned fine education -- and next the publisher, who trusts the agent -- and finally the book-buyer. I'm not going to write for a hypothetical common denominator. If someone wants to do that, fine. But that's no substitute for integrity and genuine craft.

Craft isn't learned from books about writing that advise cutting "unnecessary" words like "with" and "for" or time-markers like "then" and "as". There's a time and place for every technique -- cookie-cutter formulas don't lead to good storytelling or good writing of any description. Reading good writing is the best teacher. Most best-sellers are pretty poorly written, and that's a fact. I'd rather be a good writer than a best-seller.

Finding an agent is as much about networking as it is about grabbing the reader with the first sentence or paragraph. It's also about presenting your work cogently, before it's ever read. There isn't much to that task, if it's a formulaic plot with cookie-cutter characters, or if it has a gimmick, like its gritty subject, its bold view of sexuality, its unique twist on some topical situation -- and the writing is adequate, and easily approachable. I know I'll have to find just the right agent to appreciate what I'm doing, because it isn't conventional. I'm working on it, and not blindly.

Anyhow, I appreciate being clued in to difficult sentence structure -- sometimes I agree, or can see the point at least. What I'm still looking for is some thought about themes -- maybe we aren't far enough into anything of mine for that to emerge yet, but I think we might be getting there.

I've attracted appreciative readers from very different backgrounds than my own, and I've gained the notice of people who start out with similar sympathies. I think my writing only distresses folks who accept a limited view of what "works" in story-telling, a view that's determined by "the market" and writer's manuals. I'm not offended. I'm just looking for criticism that goes beyond that.

I almost missed that crack about Timu being too clinical. He is unusual and contradictory -- I expect readers to be intrigued by that, and read on to discover more about him, why he is the way he is, and how that's going to affect his life. I've had several readers (of very different backgrounds) do that.

One thing to remember about the maturity of the characters -- it's a medieval/Renaissance setting, when people grew up faster, because life-spans were generally shorter -- no anti-biotics or sanitary surgery. Accute appendicitis would kill you. And my central characters are meant to be unusually intelligent and gifted -- that's why they're in the school for diplomats. It's fantasy, remember? You have to have heroic protagonists -- but I also insist on realistic flaws in their characters. I want readers to think about that stuff. Some do.

I don't mind having my writing ripped to shreds, by the way, as long as the ripper can make me see the reasons -- usually it takes at least an understanding of what I'm trying to do, I guess. Let me naive about the market, and look at this stuff for itself, please, not measured against what conventional wisdom advises.

*rolls eyes*

Leah, why are you a part of this group?

-cc
::mad::

Dear friends,

Well, such a rich discussion. Inviting to me as a chocolate rabbit!

Each of us brings what we bring to the group, nothing more or less. How else could it be?

We all appreciate others reading our work, and seek to take from reviews what we can. And in return, in our reviews of others, we seek to give what we have, and can do no more. (Unless of course, we grow as we age, for then we might learn something from other writers and our reviewing, and writing, likely will become better for our experience here.)

As to: Quote:


I do not see why some are troubled when the reviewed point out to the reviewers what they are about, so that the reviewers might see the work in the broader context of what the author is intending. After all, for example, nobody here has read beyond page 70 of my 350 page novel. And that is over a period of months. It is easy to understand how disjointed the reader sees the material, how difficult it is to see theme, considering what a small slice of writers' work most have experienced.
Leah has taught me, and with little effort, to see clearly what she is doing regarding tone in her work, so that I have come to see very little need of change in that area.

I think we can appreciate reviews of our works, and still have a deeper discussion between us. So many formulas are espoused: write without using the word "then"; cut out "had" wherever you can; never end a scene without providing a cliffhanger. These bromides only taste good for a little while. I think reviewers always do better if they spend some attention to wondering what the author is working to accomplish.

And I am amazed to no end how little attention is paid to story, as compared to all the worry over phrasing and passive voice, for instance. Story is boss, after all, and the telling of it effectively is far more important than most other aspects of writing.

As to why Leah is here, why any of us should be here, she has answered that already:
Quote:


And I know that she and I have found just that, sometimes sporadically, sometimes as a matter of course, depending on what the particular readers bring to our pieces.

No doubt we all have very different reading lists. Some people look at a romance novel and put it down immediately, because they have no use for such a thing. Others look at Olaf Stapledon or Jack Vance and wonder how anyone can read them, though to me they are containers of life itself, and it is they who spur me to write with all the fulness they display.

We are slaves, to some extent, of our preconceived notions. But, with open minds, we can discuss the craft together and learn. But we each must be willing to learn, and also willing to give as clearly as possible what it is we have to give. And there is certainly no one in this group that doesn 't have something worthwhile to give.

If we choose to disregard some of what reviewers say, that is no disservice to the reviewer. It simply means the reviewer at times is not commenting on what concerns us. Who among us doesn't "dismiss" at times; there may be one or two who even dismiss most of what we say. I do not feel a disservice about that. I tell you what I see (as here), and you are capable of deciding whether it does you a service or not. Who am I to presume what others should think. Therefore I can't imagine why anyone would find the following quote offensive:

Quote:
. After all, all such standards are relative, not absolute.

Oh, and I do cater to my audience, which is people who like to read the books I've loved. There are plenty of them out there, so I know there is no need to worry about writing to the lowest common denominator in hopes of pleasing everyone. Read my article, "ON DUMBIN' IT DOWN," for my full throat on this subject.

Thanks, Leah. The group does itself well whenever we find occasion for serious discussions like this.

bill

I posted to the "method" thread last night too, with a kind of explanation for why I'm in this group. I need readers. Kim has helped me, Julie has helped me, CC has helped me -- everyone who's thoughtfully reviewed my work has helped me. I'm trying to help too.

When I point out that a particular bit of advice actually runs contrary to what I'm trying to accomplish, it isn't because I dismiss the notion that another viewpoint is helpful, it's because I figure we're all here to discuss what works, when, and why. Is it the Review Club, or the How to Write for the Market Club (Being a Distillation of the Collected Wisdom of the Writing/Publishing Section at Barnes&Noble)?

If the next James Joyce, Virginia Woolf, or William Burroughs were a member, I wonder what the reviews would look like?

(Now, I hope I don't really need to include a disclaimer that I'm not classing myself with any of those people. Well, maybe I'd better.)

Anyhow -- please point out when a sentence in my work seems awkward, when more info or less seems to be needed, etc. But please also think about the story, and what it means as well as what it says.

What it means being the "subtext"; what it says, "the text." What the writing is all about is the subtext. The subtext can be expressed in a limitless variety of texts. The worst a reader can do is attach his mind to text, so that she completely overlooks the subtext.

Bill,

Shocking that I actually agree with you. ::biggrin:: I think discussion like this is important. I also think that there is no fast and easy dichotomy between "lowest common denominator" and "good fiction." I think we can all agree that Laurell K. Hamilton leaves something to be desired in her writing. But she's sold a million books. What's that about?

There is something compelling about her stories. The market says so. Sure, majority rule is often wrong and usually stupid (look at slavery and segregation). It's also enlightening sometimes (look at the French Revolution, perhaps). I think literary fiction is beautiful. You know why? Because there are some brilliant writers out there where I don't have to ask what they're trying to do.

We need to all think about this before we scream "YOU AREN'T LOOKING AT THE BIG PICTURE OF WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO." I won't say that I haven't done the same. If our readers don't see what we're trying to do, maybe that's our fault. Maybe we shouldn't be explaining and should, instead, be asking questions that get to the heart of what we want to do and dig at why people aren't getting it. Because we've got smart people here, REALLY smart people, that write all sorts of genres brilliantly and have brilliant ideas and beautiful hearts. And my point, and, I think, Julie's point, is that we all degrade that gift when we launch into defensive explanations instead of falling to our knees grateful that these fantastic people have taken the time to help us with our flaws.

Oh, and if we want to be writers, we must ALWAYS think about the market. Writing is a professional position, and until we get somebody else to pay us, we're just authors, waiting for our chance to be writers. We do NOT EVER have the luxury of assuming that chance will find us. We write for the people that read us, and by not considering them, assuming that most of them are stupid, or restricting ourselves to only the literary geeks of the world, we do them a disservice. Some of the best literary works are incredibly accessible, or were to the readers of the time. I would never suggest selling out (which is funny, really, because I just wrote about this in my blog), but writing what you love with an eye to the people you're writing for isn't selling out. It's FAIR.

-cc