Member: FeegleFan

Heh. Heh. Heh.
Hi.

posted by FeegleFan2 at 6:32 pm (EST) on Apr 19, 2009

I've heard Steven Erikson writes some good medieval fantasy as well. I haven't read any of his stuff yet, but his novels seem to get good reviews.

Steven
http://steventill.com

posted by StevenTill at 11:53 pm (EST) on Jul 10, 2008

I saw your post on the Archer's Tale group about looking for good Medieval Fantasy. I'd definitely go with the suggestions of the others on that thread and pick up George Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire Series. That's the best, realistic medieval fantasy type novel I've read. I just got finished with Acacia by David Anthony Durham and that was good also.

Steven
http://steventill.com

posted by StevenTill at 9:28 pm (EST) on Jun 27, 2008

Heh. You can probably tell that I've had problems with writer's block before.

Patience does tend to be a plus. Although, if you get a burst of impatience to be done, then that can help. Definitely experiment with different stuff until you find something that works.

Well, my world's complicated. It started out as basically the real world with a few extra layers, but for various reasons I ended up adding a ton of other stuff. I did some outlining a few nights ago and now I'm looking at about seven books to tell all the stories, and each one has a little bit of a different take on the world, but it's all basically a veneer of the "real world" barely covering up all these other insane, unstable layers.

What we would call "the world" makes up the Human, or Common dimension. (Common as in "we have it in common.") It holds the majority of people in the universe, humans, vampires, werewolves, etc., along with visitors from the other dimensions and any hybrids. There are three other major dimensions (Realms) that hold Demons, Angels, and Spirits. (All three are very different from the common idea, but the humans named them Demons Angels etc. The 'verse does have the real ones, but they usually act behind the scenes and aren't noticeable in the story.)

So. Envision it as a circle divided into four parts, one each for humans/demons/angels/spirits. Then above and below the circle there are other dimensions, usually small and unstable and not lasting long. There are also degrees of overlap between each quarter of the circle. Everything can get into the human dimension, but not everything can go everywhere else. Vampires, werewolves, etc. are all results of various combinations of creatures.

Hopefully some of that made sense. So, what about yours? I envisioned it as a pretty standard medieval fantasy world, but what are its quirks?

posted by FFortuna at 9:17 pm (EST) on Jan 16, 2008

Oh, writer's block! You dreaded scourge and horror!

It depends on what kind, I think. If you've got the kind where you just have no ideas, try buying The Writer's Block (About $10, 786 writing prompts. Pictures, quotes, words, etc.) or something similar. Maybe a writing contest with a prompt.

The kind where you have ideas but can't get anything onto the page usually calls for something else; more ideas won't help any. I yo-yo when I'm trying to think of the next thing to say, so I can think but keep my hands busy. In the long term, I insist on writing at least one sentence of my project every single day. Ideally I'd write more, but sometimes I just can't, and writing one sentence even when I'm in a hurry keeps my thoughts on what I'm trying to do. And when there's more time, my insisting on one sentence will usually pop a whole paragraph or two into my head. Since I've started this I've gotten SO much more done instead of continually having month-long stalls.

There's also the kind where you just aren't interested. I don't know if you outline or not. If you do, try just listing off the things that need to happen in the next scene, then telling how each thing is accomplished. The problem may be with the scene, so if you change it your interest may come back to life. If the scene's all right, you may just need to keep pushing until you get something you WANT to write. If you don't outline, you might want to make a list of all the ways you could go on from where you are. One of them's got to spark your interest.

And thus ends the monster writer's block speech...

posted by FFortuna at 5:18 pm (EST) on Jan 12, 2008

I agree. :) There's not much more annoying than humor that isn't quite funny, because I always feel like maybe it WAS funny but I didn't get it.

Other thoughts:

1. It's great for there to be one or two characters memorable for being funny, but they shouldn't hog all the lines.
2. I like it when the atmosphere of the book is funny, without taking away from the intensity. Re: The Dresden Files. I think it's accomplished by the protagonist having a healthy understanding for the humor of life... Especially effective when the book is in first person of course.

posted by FFortuna at 9:24 pm (EST) on Dec 22, 2007

Okay, I guess I can't think of anything else to say on the subject... :)

New topic. Um, comedy in novels? Your thoughts?

posted by FFortuna at 8:29 pm (EST) on Dec 7, 2007

But if it's natural for them to be awkward, then awkward is natural. ;)
And I agree with all your points.

Let me think, what makes a character realistic... my two main criteria are:
1. Unpredictability. NO real person has one single overriding characteristic that determines every single thing they do. They may have one main drive or motivation, or one main personality trait, but it's the MAIN one, not the ONLY one. A real person is always going to do things that surprise you.
2. Understandability. A character may seem completely foreign when you first meet them just like a person may seem completely on another wavelength when you meet them, but the more you get to know the person (or character) the more you understand and identify with them. People all have the same kinds of feelings and motivations in the end, there's always SOMETHING another person can understand even if they haven't experienced it themselves.

posted by FFortuna at 4:49 am (EST) on Nov 29, 2007

Dialogue is one of those things where I can recite a bunch of other people's opinions but I don't really have any of my own... a few thoughts:

1. It should be natural. Not too sanctimonious, but not too earthy, unless you're trying to make a point.
2. It should flow. I've read books where it's like two characters are talking in the same room, but they're not hearing what the other's saying, just so the author can get in exposition or some cool line they want to make sure people hear but that actually has no significance to the story. People talk TO each other.
3. People don't always finish their sentences. Most of the time it breaks up the flow of the book to leave words half-said or thoughts unfinished, but on occasion it can make things more believable.
4. Different people say different things! In different ways! With different words! (That's for you, Philip Pullman! Great book, but ever think about varying your sentence structure or your dialogue rhythm?!)

posted by FFortuna at 12:34 am (EST) on Nov 26, 2007

Hmm... I think the longest a book should be is about 600 pages, standard size. The Grapes of Wrath was about that long, and it dragged on FOREVER. Granted, Battlefield Earth has 1050 pages and I love every one of them, but that's an exception. Anything longer than 600ish should either be lengthened into two books or shortened. I think the shortest a book should be is about 200 pages, and that's really compact. My favorite size is about 350. Right now mine looks like it's going to be about 250, so I may need to lengthen it...

The most important thing I think is to make sure that everything important is there and anything unimportant is gone. I've read big books that have too much junk in them and small books that left out things, all to make the book the length they wanted. Like Eldest, by Christopher Paolini? I love that book, but I'm really not interested in the main character shaving every day. Seriously.

posted by FFortuna at 6:24 pm (EST) on Nov 23, 2007

True, I do have multiple chars with blue eyes or brown hair or whatever. My main point was that, say, if the author really likes blue eyes, all the handsome characters shouldn't have blue eyes. (I've never done anything like that... nope, never... uh-huh... never... who, me?)

So, I think we've exhausted that topic now. Let's see... how about length? How long do you want your book to be, and why, and what's going to make it that long?

posted by FFortuna at 6:31 pm (EST) on Nov 21, 2007

1. Absolutely. No gemstones. I usually try to use a comparison to something that reminds me of the character. I have one who has "green eyes like a snake" one or two times, as I recall. But most of the time I just say "light blue" or "dark brown" or whatever.

2. I have all of four characters with black hair. Two are old vampires, and as vampires get older their skin gets lighter and their hair gets darker (in my 'verse), the other two are Sorcerers, and they tend to have black hair too. So again, I agree.

3. I have spent much time pondering how beautiful to make characters, actually. (A few years ago, most of my characters were stunningly gorgeous.) My three main characters and the two main protagonists are still beautiful, but four of those five are vampires and the other one is a werewolf. It's called "preternatural allure." Hehe. The other characters range from "nice-looking" to "plain" to "not-nice-looking." One of my personal favorite characters is actually an oldish roundish baldish man whose clothes are always rumpled and not quite fitting right. But that's a rabbit trail.

Other thoughts: You need a variety. Some black hair, some blonde hair, some brown hair... maybe a character with wild spikes and stripes, if they're in the right time period, etc. Same for everything else. It's just like needing to have a variety of personalities on the stage, as it were. And the character's appearance should fit with their personality. A lazy person who eats three bags of Oreos a day is NOT going to be tall and muscle-bound, for instance.

posted by FFortuna at 4:56 pm (EST) on Nov 17, 2007

Well, I replied, and then LT ate it. Poor LT and it's growing pains. Anyway.

My main problems with writing love scenes are 1) Trying not to be cliche, and 2) Figuring out what constitutes good detail but not smut. Especially, trying not to do both at once!

I find that writing darker love scenes is easier than lighter ones. Maybe I just identify more with anger toward loved ones than with mushiness ;). What happens depends on where I'm trying to move the story. Anyway, one of my favorite things is when the pair of characters are yelling at each other or whatever and then one or both yells "And I love you, blast it!" or something of the sort.

posted by FFortuna at 10:59 pm (EST) on Nov 15, 2007

Again, I agree. I do think that something like "I've always loved you" or just "You're beautiful" can be really touching if it's said simply and plainly. But "Oooooh...! I've LOVED you since the MOMENT I MET you, you take my BREATH away... Oooooh..." is just plain awful. Unless you're getting your character drunk just to mix up the other character.

Your love triangle sounds pretty cool, with all the layers and layers of awareness. :) I also like how the connection isn't formed until the end, when it's all over or nearly so. I have something similar in my ending, where one of the guys figures out exactly what was going on in the other guy's head, but of course by then it's too late for it to matter either way. Sucker for tragedy, I am. :D

Topic related to this one: love scenes? They're almost as hard for me to write as fight scenes. Your opinion?

posted by FFortuna at 7:35 pm (EST) on Nov 12, 2007

Suffice it to say that several important people die in my ending, a long with a ton of incidentals/unnamed characters, so. Heh.

I agree completely about whiny characters. I'm likely to dislike the entire book if there's a whiny character without a darn good reason. Although, like most things, I suppose they can be used to good effect if done on purpose. Also about info dumping, which is why I don't really like prologues very much.

Romance! I was thinking of this for the next topic too, actually. :D. I think it can be done all sorts of ways to good effect (meaning the effect the author intends, of course). The most important thing is to keep the characters in character. A romance will bring out new characteristics in them, and they need to be believable.

My central love triangle's main characteristic is mutual confusion. Because the male characters are best friends and the female character is friends with both of them. They all spend quite a while dancing around it, with both guys thinking that the other one is after her and not wanting to interfere. All of which keeps the tension strong, and the eventual releases of tension all the more welcome/intense.

There are several minor characters who are in/go through romances over the course of the thing, and the interesting thing is that most of it doesn't happen where the reader can see it, but it's huge motivation for things that happen later. The reader only sees the results (negative). Some of those results don't even come in until the second book.

The last class of romance in the first book is that between Gamaliel and everyone who follows him. He can convince someone that he loves them completely and above all others, even while there are a few hundred of them all at once, and they'll all keep believing it until they die. Part of it is supernatural hypnotism-like power, but most of it is just his personal charisma. The results of that also don't fully come to fruition until the second and third books, where people begin realizing just how many vampires and dhampirs he made; how many people he destroyed just by existing, not even by things he'd done.

So. I think romance is an insanely valuable tool, both for motivations and for understanding of a character. Most of the events of the novel wouldn't happen without it, even though that's not necessarily what the book's about. That said, when it's done wrong it's awful. When it's too sappy or idealistic, it's just not going to ring true, and it will be BORING. I also hate when the characters all seem utterly clueless, or when they waffle back and forth. (Interesting, because my female lead is clueless, but it's one of her main character traits. She's not as clueless as she seems.) That's one of the things I don't like in a lot of (mostly medieval) fantasy: the clueless and annoying princess who the prince is smitten with anyway. She's got to have some kind of redeeming quality, or why would the prince, handsome strong smart etc., even be interested? Or when she hems and haws and can't decide, one second enamoured with him and the next thinking he's basically slime.

Your rant? :)

posted by FFortuna at 9:02 pm (EST) on Nov 11, 2007

I think you've given me a plot bunny, for a story that DOES end in the big party and wedding and dancing and happiness... OR SO IT SEEMS. (dun dun dun.) I'll have to work on that. :D But I don't seem in danger of keeping characters alive and happy when they shouldn't be, I have more issues with killing them off without a good reason... anyway. As regards climaxes, I enjoy all shapes and sizes, but with special affection for the ones that involve a major decision on the protagonist's part, with real uncertainty on the reader's part.

Beginnings! Back to my quote of before, which I can't find the actual quotation for. "My ending is in my beginning." the beginning should hold all the sleeping, pregnant potential for the whole book. Aside from that, I think it should have something to hold the reader. Yes, I know, everyone says that, but it's true. If a book looked interesting enough for me to pick it up in the first place, I'm almost certainly going to finish it, but if the first chapter or two doesn't get me interested then I'm not going to be very enthusiastic about my reading.

The thing that grabs me can be anything: good writing, an interesting character, an interesting world, etc. But the best thing is when there's a lot that's going unsaid. That makes me curious, and the more that goes unsaid the hungrier I get.

posted by FFortuna at 1:52 pm (EST) on Nov 10, 2007

My mother is a very dedicated karate shodan and teacher, and her particular brand of karate is self-defense instead of sports-oriented, so I get extra info about real-life situations from her and the teaching videos she watches. :) Stuff like that, adaptable first-hand information, is what I usually start with when I'm trying to characterize situations I haven't experienced, and then the second thing is what I think a given personality's reaction to a situation would be. In the end, we're writers, aren't we? If all we wrote was stuff we'd done personally, we'd only be able to write autobiographies.

Book endings. My essential position is that they should conform to the rest of the book as a whole. There is nothing more frustrating than a book that promises one thing and delivers something completely different. The ending is the most important part of the book in that it's the solution (in whatever way) to the story problem, and that it's the part the reader is going to remember most clearly. In short, it's time to pull out all the stops. Anyway, as I've read in several writer's magazines etc., "my ending is in my beginning." (I'll look up who said that when I get home.) The book ought to lead surprisingly but inexorably toward whatever ending the author has chosen.

There's the official rant, anyway. As to my personal preference, I like a bit of everything, but my favorites tend to be the ones that are tragic, but that don't destroy the coolness of the world, you know? What're your opinions/preferences on the whole thing?

posted by FFortuna at 10:21 pm (EST) on Nov 6, 2007

The idea of keeping unnecessary adjectives and adverbs out of an action scene makes a lot of sense to me. Hopefully I'm doing that already, because I try to keep ANYTHING unnecessary out of them to keep the reader grounded, but I'll definitely be keeping it in mind!

I LOVED the first three quarters or so of Peeps, but I hated the ending. It fell majorly flat to me. The feel of the book promised dark, sleek awesomeness, but the ending was all inspirational and rising music. It bothered me. I raved for a long time :P. Anyway, the vampires in the book were very original, in my opinion. Now enough about Peeps already, right? :)

I agree with pretty much everything you say. It's especially difficult for us beginning supernatural writers, because we can't just ASK somebody what it feels like to be punched in the gut, we have to figure out how OUR CHARACTER would feel if they were punched in the gut. And so on.

Chattering makes me weep. Seriously. I notice it happens a LOT on RPGs... the group of characters has a gigantic monster bearing down on them and they're sitting there arguing about which passageway has the better paint job or something. The RPGs are an extreme example, it doesn't happen quite so often in actual books, I guess. What I do use and appreciate is non-verbal communication between characters during a fight. If it's a multi-person fight, the people on each "team," depending on how long they've been working together, are going to have a certain level of unspoken or even instinctive communication. Likewise, one of the most important things in a real fight is to anticipate your opponents' moves. If you can't react fast enough, you won't last long. So there's definitely communication going on, but it's all under the surface, and most of it doesn't need to be written down.

posted by FFortuna at 7:08 pm (EST) on Nov 6, 2007

I try to console myself with "I'll write a short story about them later and add in all the juicy details..." :D

Action/suspense scenes are the hardest ones for me to write, especially when there are more than two or three characters. (Yes, subtly sadistic vampires do in fact demand action and suspense... :D) I have a large multi-faction fight in the climax, and dread it very much.

Anyway, what makes them so difficult is mainly pacing, which we've already mentioned. In amongst the pacing issues are descriptive problems: HOW did he just get hit in the stomach?? I thought that character was on the other side of the room! What angle did he make that kick at in order to send that character flying? etc. The only thing I can think of is to spend AGONIZING amounts of time over them, then set them aside, and read them aloud to myself a day or two after. My writing buddies say they're clear, but they usually seem flat to me. The same with scenes that are just suspenseful. I would suppose that that's because I've read them so many times, and I'm not on the edge of my seat. Your thoughts on the subject?

posted by FFortuna at 8:35 pm (EST) on Nov 5, 2007

I've never read To Catch a Pirate, and I'll try to remember not to :).

How often do you run into quarter-vampires... I have about four in the various sequels to the WIP. But they've all got weird blood combinations, they aren't just quarter-vampires. And I just never get tired of hearing about weird blood combinations. :D

I have a huge overpopulation problem in my universe. :D LOTS of minor characters, ranging from "the vampire sitting at that table over there" to characters that deserve (and may eventually have) their own novels. The hard part is keeping all that gorgeous history out so that the book stays focused. When I started the idea was to have a believable world, and so I have this mania for making up backstories for incidental characters. Well, like you say, J. K. Rowling has a lot more, and Tolkien didn't skimp on the character-count either!

I find that it's way more fun than it ought to be to try to keep the reader guessing about the minor characters without distracting them from the main plot. I also tend to use the middle-level minor characters as object lessons or illustrations for what's going on the World In General. The protagonists aren't average, and I don't want them (or the readers) to lose sight of what's happening with the average people.

posted by FFortuna at 2:29 pm (EST) on Nov 5, 2007

Re: Gamaliel's minions, I don't usually call them that specifically. It just depends on the context... I usually call them "followers" or just "Gamaliel's vampires" or whatever. I haven't fixed my mind on any word to describe them yet. It's annoying.

Your protagonists/antagonist sound very interesting and well-matched! I love a good group of characters that play off of each other well. As far as I know you described it well and I'm not confused :). I'm also a huge fan of the love triangle, especially when it involves a good guy and a bad guy. :D

Your idea of the reader slotting the protagonist themselves is very interesting, I hadn't thought about it like that!

So, for a new topic: Minor characters. How many, how detailed, how important...?

posted by FFortuna at 7:24 pm (EST) on Nov 4, 2007