Trials of Patchwork Writing

Every writer has their way of writing. Many can start from the beginning of their story and take it straight through to the end. That's something I've only been able to do once or twice in all the stories I've written. I can get so far into a story then I have no idea what comes next. My hero or heroine might have a problem or be caught in a jam and I have a difficult time getting them out of it. And they don't always care to help.

I'm a patchwork writer. When I get a story idea I can write the beginning and ending. That's the completed quilt top and backing.  I know what the gist of the story is going to be, the over all pattern. The rest of the quilt is done in blocks. Every block or scene represents a single idea that has to be assembled just right so it forms an interesting pattern. Some patterns end up being more complex than others, have more pieces to them. Some blocks have missing pieces and I end up having to go back a few times until I find the right threads to use to finish the block. How many blocks I make depends on the size of the quilt I want. A lap quilt is great for a short story. I can usually come up with enough to create a twin size, not too small, not too big. So far I haven't been able to manage a king size quilt. That takes a lot of room, material and imagination to complete.

Once the blocks are designed and ready to be assembled it's time to figure out the logical order. If one block is out or order, it can ruin the whole pattern. It's like playing a game of solitaire. If you don't notice that one misplaced card you don't get to properly finish the game.

Next comes stitching all the pieces together so they form one cohesive unit. The colors blend  together,  the small design pieces work to form a larger design. Sometimes in the sewing, the edges are slightly off and I have to go back and figure out the best way to solve the problem. If the bridges that join the blocks are off, even slightly, there's no getting from one scene to another without getting wet. Nobody wants to get wet like that.

Sometimes, when everything is put together in the right places I find the pattern is a bit smaller than I wanted. Then it's a matter of how to fix that problem. The easiest way is to make a few more blocks in the direction you need to go. With written blocks, it's not so hard to expand the scenes I have in order to make the story longer. Sometimes I come up with a whole new block to add in. It either clarifies something that's already going on or it's a new idea that takes the plot a bit further. When I figure I've got a completed story then I just dress it up with a border, then bind it off. Once the quilt stitching is completed, then the story, for better or worse is finally done.

I'm sure there are easier ways to do it but I never could see my way through other methods. My brain and imagination have always functioned on a more complicated level. Believe me, sometimes that can be frustrating. On the other hand it's allowed me to come up with late-in-the-story twists that I didn't see coming. It's more fun that way.

Would I change my method if I could? Probably not. As long as there are folks who like the results then it's worth sticking with.

That's the way I work. It's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Updated Words.... New words... Really?

Okay.  This has been bothering me for some time now and as a retired editor, I decided I had to finally say something. Keep in mind I'm only expressing my opinion on the subject matter, so Please, no torches.

I'm an avid reader. I admit, in the last couple years I haven't been reading as much since other things have made claims on my time. (They say when you retire you'll have more time to do the things you love. Know any more jokes?) There have been a few subtle changes in grammar that apparently no one has seen fit to question, at least no one I've heard from.

When we learned basic grammar in school, we learned about the tenses of words: present, past, future, etc.  I can remember being given a list of words for homework and having to write those words in all their forms. It was fun and challenging. It gave us a start to putting words together and making sense of them. I know. We're talking in sentences before we even go off to school. But learning about sentences and the parts of speech that go into the making of them help us to understand how language is used, created, or just exists. Watching the slow deterioration of language makes me wonder what is being taught now, if anything. There are aspects of language that are no longer deemed important, what with the advent of social media, texting, spelling and sentence structure is going the way of the dodo.

So getting to the heart of the matter. At first I figured, typo, a writing error that wasn't caught. Typos can happen in the printing process, then it's kind of too late to do anything about them. Nobody's perfect. Or it could be a mistake on the part of the writer where something isn't caught and continues to linger in future books. The bad part is when those errors (I'd like to believe that's how they started out) become the norm.

Lighted?  Shined?  Drug???  Are they for real?  ex.: Mary lighted the candles on the birthday cake. It doesn't even sound right, more like a child that has yet to learn about grammar. What happened to ... Mary lit the candles...

Or how about, John shined the flashlight around the room. Shined is meant for shoes, not sources of light. While the right way to say the same might be, John shone the flashlight around the room. I admit it's a bit awkward even though it's the proper form. It might be better as John directed the flashlight beam into the corner of the room.

And the worst of the three. Harry drugged the body away from the door. Drugged??? Did Harry cause the body to take on a chemical stupor? Sounds ridiculous. In this case Harry dragged the body away from the door. It's dead weight figuratively and literally and dragging is about the only way to move it. Granted, these are mild compared to one other item I was made aware of.

Some powers that be might be more concerned with finding ways to remain relevant in a world gone tech crazy. Not only are they accepting senseless forms of words, but they also accept new words that are inconsiderate to say the least as well as downright insulting. Recently, a new word was accepted by a particular dictionary as acceptable. It's one that is aimed at a specific group of people. I won't mention the word here, it's that nasty.  Is this what we are degenerating into with the push to make changes in our language? I know words change in meaning and other words are created to better explain the world around us, but there's such a thing as taking it too far.

As members of a vocation that uses one of the greatest forms of communication, it's up to authors and editors, more than anyone else in the industry, to make sure we present the language, both written and spoken,  at its best.

Electronic vs. Print: The Best of Both Worlds

                                                                                 

For quite a few years now, electronic books have found and pretty much settled into their niche in the reading world. When they first came out the big publishing houses said it wouldn't last. It was the beginning of a war between print and downloads.

Like anything else, the idea of electronic books needed time to grow out of its infancy and become an entity worthy of providing competition. The technology was there... It was a matter of learning how to use it to best advantage. That grew by leaps and bounds. Electronic publishers began to pop up on the internet. Some, unfortunately, saw it as a way to make a quick buck then disappear, sometimes to reappear under another name. These antics made it hard for the honest ones to earn credibility, but earn it they did.

Today, electronic publishing is a thriving industry and sooner or later, all hopeful writers gravitate to them to find a start. Not so long ago, there were lots of big house publishers that a hopeful writer could submit to. With so many merges having taken place over the years, that number is down to five major houses. To add to that problem, they won't look at a manuscript unless it's agented. In a way you can't blame them. In turn, agents are becoming harder to get. You can't make a name for yourself as an author if you don't have an agent. And you can't get a agent if you don't have a name.  By the time you do make a name and all those great sales (we should all be so lucky) you don't really need an agent.  But I digress.

Electronic publishers, or e-pubs as they're affectionately called, proved to the industry that they're here to stay. Since their infancy they've proved to the big houses that there's room for both print and electronic books. So what are the pros and cons?

On average it takes up to a year to see a book on a website, (unless you're going independent publishing which takes a lot less time). It goes through all the same phases as print but in a much shorter time. Like print, more and more of the responsibility of getting your name known, of doing all the promotion, is falling to the author. If an author chooses to go independent, or "indie" then they have more work to do but they can reap more benefits.

 Through the years, the big houses have admitted that electronic books are here to stay and have acquired their own e-pubs. As the saying goes, "If you can't beat them, join them." And that's exactly what they've done. The compromise also pretty much put to rest the debate of e-books putting print out of business. That will never happen.

Now, there's the reader's point of view, print vs. download. 

Older readers are more apt to stay with print. We love the feel of a book in our hands, the heft of it when it's a big book, (like War and Peace or Gabaldon's Outlander series. (Love all that detail)). We love to peruse the bindings on a shelf to decide what we're in the mood to read. When you visit someone you know likes to read, what's the first thing you do?  Check out their library of course.  It's a definite compliment to them.

What happens when you have limited space? You might try to find some way to squeeze in more book shelves or stack books on any available flat surface. Either you start donating older books to places that might appreciate them, libraries, rest homes, rehab centers, etc. or you don't buy any more.  If you're a bookaholic, not buying books is like trying to stop drinking or smoking. It's very difficult and nearly impossible.

So I compromised.  I've been reading some books and automatically putting them aside for the local library. I know I won't read them again. I have a lot of history books dealing mainly with the Tudor and Plantagenet dynasties. Some are straight history, others are historical fiction and they all make good reference books. Then there are books that belong to a series, like Gabaldon's Outlander series. It doesn't make sense to have that partly in print, partly electronic, so I stay with the print.

Books I want strictly for the pleasure of reading, are electronic. For years I didn't go anywhere without a book in my bag. Now I can take a hundred books with me and pick one out depending on my mood. There's no added weight, no unnecessary space taken up. And... The e-reader has its own bookmark. No dog-eared pages, no strange bookmarks (like a fried egg) one librarian wrote about. Just don't forget to charge up the reader as needed.

Everyone who reads has their own preferences, e-books or prints.  And as long as both industries are willing to compromise, we have the best of both worlds. Who says we have to make a choice?

Fixing POVs That Get Out of Hand

Every writer looks for someone knowledgeable to critique their work. While that's going on, we're on pins and needles waiting for the criticism we're either going to love or hate, or maybe both.

I guess the worse thing to hear is "You're head-hopping." Depending on how bad it is, it could ring the death knell on your project. At least it feels like it. I know that every time I hear it, I feel frustrated and a bit depressed. It'll take me a few days to get into the mindset to make repairs before I actually look at the work.

It took me a few months to understand POV (point of view) until one day the lightbulb clicked on. Until that happened my mentor/teacher used to send an occasional 'virtual' "Gibbs" before it became popular. But then there are some things that take me forever to get a handle on. Since that time I've been able to put a simple explanation to the problem. If you don't want to change the POV going on, then don't let other characters think. This is about as close as you can get to writing in first person without writing in first person. Consider this...

Two women, Mary and Jane are having a discussion about an upcoming local election in which one of the husbands is running for office. Jane is proud of her husband's accomplishments and has thoughts of him running circles around the competition. She's thinking about him moving up in a political career. The POV is hers for the moment. Then Mary starts thinking Jane's husband is an idiot to think he could win.  Now the reader is wondering why Mary is thinking that, which changes the focus on the characters, and changes the POV.

Another way to change point of view is to have the scene move on... different people, different place. Or it could still be the same two people under different circumstances. The main thing is to be careful with who is thinking what. Thoughts are the focus...not dialogue and not action. Those things move the scene along, while thinking sort of holds it up a bit and grabs the reader's attention.

At some point, in fixing the edits in your work you learn to be creative. Too much head-hopping often means deleting bits and pieces of the story. And we all hate to do that. In a story I completed recently I was told there was too much head-hopping. I couldn't afford to delete any of the work, which meant looking for some creative ways to fix the problem. One way was to have the character with the POV watching the other(s) and thinking about what they see. After a while it can get rather boring. It's more telling than showing (another no-no) Then I realized the simplest way to avoid changing the focus was to put the second person's thoughts into dialogue. Let them think aloud. Since it then becomes part of the conversation, the POV will stay where it belongs until you find the proper place and time to change it.

It's unfortunate that big-name authors don't have to follow the same rules we lesser or unknown authors have to follow. Some of them have been known for their head-hopping, jumping back and forth with the point of view until you have no idea who's running with it.

The rest of us have no choice but to abide by the rules if we expect to get anywhere. But that's okay. By sticking to the rules we eventually learn how to bend, not break them. In the long run, we'll be better off for it.

So it boils down to "He who thinks, controls the POV"  

I wish you success in your battle with handling points of view.

When First Person Needs a Different Outlook

I don't particularly care for stories written in first person. I admit I keep trying them, looking for something that might be different but most of the time I'm disappointed and can't get into the story. To me, writing in first person reveals some serious character flaws. This person is telling the story but their view is very limited. It has to be because they can't describe anything that doesn't affect their own senses.

There's always an exception. They always have that same narrow focus but the difference is in how it's presented. Most first person characters deal with "I see", or "I think" but Diana Gabaldon's Claire Fraser is able to tell about her surroundings, people dealing with other people, without interjecting herself into every situation. And when Claire is directly involved, she isn't always the focus of the scene. I like it so much better that way. It doesn't sound so 'self-absorbed'.

But I have found another use for first person. Sometimes when I'm working on a scene I find it difficult to get the feeling of things just right. So one day I tried putting myself in the particular situation my character was unsuccessfully facing. Raven's young son (about two years old) had disappeared and Raven spent her days riding the length and breadth of the highlands searching for him.

To bring out the emotions Raven needed to experience, I got under her skin, became her and interjected what I might have felt under those circumstances. The anger, the worry, the disregarding of anyone else who tried to stop her or make her see reason. I was able to delve into Raven's psyche and bring out all she was feeling. Working from this angle makes it so much easier to interject the necessary emotional trauma that fits the scene.

In my first book, the heroine never knew her parents and believed she'd been unwanted by them. So naturally there was no love lost on her part. Late in the story she finds a letter from her mother where the truth is revealed and gives the heroine new insight to her situation. Again, I put myself in her head and felt the things she needed to deal with. Both scenes were written in first person.

When I'd finished writing both of them, I read them carefully and changed "I" to the heroine's name, changed verbs and anything else that would take the scenes out of first person. What I didn't touch was the emotional quality of the scene. What I ended up with turned out to be some of my best writing.

I suppose it's an odd way to use first person but you use what tools you have to create what you want.  And those tools aren't always used as they were meant to be used. Would that fall under necessity being the mother of invention, where just about everything can have more than its intended function? I imagine it could be. As they say, you need to know the rules before you can bend them. (You don't want to break the rules. That's a whole other can of worms that should remain tightly sealed.) Using first person this way is probably bending the rules of writing but whatever helps can't hurt.

So when you get stuck on a scene, consider a different way to approach it to get the results you're looking for. Who knows, you just might come up with a winning story.

A Trip to Medieval England

Discovering "new to me" authors is always an adventure in itself. Not long ago I found Elizabeth Chadwick and her wonderful historical fiction set in the Plantagenet era. It'll take me a while to make my way through her list of work but that's half the fun. Of course that's what all readers like to do. It's part of the whole reading experience.

Shortly after discovering Chadwick I found another author, James Forrester. That's the pen name (and middle names) of historian Dr. Ian Mortimer, author of The Time Traveler's Guide to Medieval England. As it turned out I already have the guide on my bookshelf. I admit it, due to past reading experience, I'm not a big fan of male authors (sorry, guys). But I decided to give this one a shot based on the genre. I'm glad I did.

The book I've just finished is the first in a trilogy and is titled Sacred Treason. The story takes place during the reign of Elizabeth I. For several years, Henry Machyn has been keeping a journal that no one but a select few has seen. Once word has gone out that the book could be holding information of a treasonous plot, the manhunt begins. It isn't enough that Elizabeth has her people (Sir Cecil and Francis Walsingham to name a couple) persecuting Catholics and trying to restore Protestants and the state church (which was just the opposite of what her sister "Bloody" Mary did during her reign).

The journal or chronicle in question has been left to William Harley, Clarenceux King of Armes, who has no idea what the chronicle is about, nor does he know what it's for. He has to figure it out and get it to the right person. In the meantime, anyone found to have possession or knowledge of the book or knows of its whereabouts ends up as a "guest" of Walsingham. Is the book treasonous? If so, what treason does it hold?

This story is more about the characters than action but that doesn't make it any less intriguing. There are a couple close escapes and some one-on-one combat. Forrester gives us a clear picture of what life was like at that time, the mid-sixteenth century -- not just living conditions but how, to some extent, the law worked. It wasn't pretty.

Sacred Treason has been informative as well as entertaining and has opened new avenues of reading for me. Next book?  I'm looking forward to reading Book 2: The Roots of Betrayal.

They Did What? Again?

I am NOT a happy camper. Last night I switched the TV channel to watch my favorite Monday night shows.

They were bounced.

Again.

 This time it was for the NCAA championship. For the last 2 weeks March Madness pretty much took over the airwaves. Almost every night there was a basketball game on, sometimes followed by a second game. With the college games done, pro basketball playoffs with take over, along with hockey.

I just looked through the listings for a major cable company and found a minimum of 9 channels devoted to sports. Nine!  I know there are more hiding in there. So why do they have to take over network channels as well??? Basketball and hockey are now competing with baseball, which just opened its season yesterday. (I don't need to watch every game that's played. I'm happy to get the final score on Sports Wrap-up segments on the nightly news)

Come August we'll have football to contend with. I admit I do watch that sport, but only when my favorite team is playing. This sport has the shortest season of all of them...sixteen weeks followed by three weeks of playoffs and the Super Bowl. I don't mind when football or golf run a bit overtime. I'll watch the last half hour of a golf tournament if I'm waiting for the next program. At least I know I still get to see my favorite shows afterward. Better late than not at all.

Then there's the programs the networks decide they don't like for whatever reason and they start moving them around during the regular season. Fans don't know where to look and the show suffers from a drop in viewership. When it drops, the show gets cancelled.  oops.

The fall season begins anywhere from late September to mid-October. By Thanksgiving everything is going into holiday reruns. In a way I can see that because people are paying more attention to the holiday season. Then from late December to sometime in April, the airwaves are bombarded with award shows. Country Music Awards. Grammy Awards. Peoples Choice Awards...(the only one viewers have any influence with) Oscars, Emmys, SAG, MTV, AM...something or other, and lots more. The second half of the season is made up more of reruns and specials than it is new episodes.

It seems the same programs get knocked off every time for all these TV specials. One special was on twice and knocked off the same program both times. The third time it was on it bumped another show. This well-known company had to have its special shown later in the evening because of its "adult" content.

Just for the heck of it, next season I fully intend to create a chart that will keep track of when the new episodes of my favorite shows are broadcast, when reruns are thrown in and when the programs are pre-empted for specials, or another hiatus.

Sometimes I get an idea for a story from a character's comment, a story setting... you never know.
Maybe I should give some thought to writing a thriller where Network execs are disappearing because of their over-enthusiastic programming manipulation. You think they'd get the hint?

Something to think about.