Larian Studios Forums General Chat The Writing Thread !

here's a sidenote too......yesterday as i was standing on the back end of my truck the step fell off, and me with it! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ouch.gif" alt="" /> .... anyway my hand is borke, or broke, and its my mouse hand too. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cry.gif" alt="" /> i like writing but lately have had zero time, and now this.....needless to say i wont be writing for now, anything....it's a good thing i'm left-handed! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wave.gif" alt="" />

at least we are having a heat wave here, 37 yesterday and 80degrees in the shade.....

Good Luck and "Gute Besserung !" as we say here in Germany ! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

@Elliot Kane : I didn't know that particular thing about Hitler neither.


(Which leads me to the question if I have used "neither" correctly here; it's a thing that has always confused me.)

Alrik...

It should be 'either' not 'neither' - though plenty of native English speakers get confused over that <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

So do I <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Hope this helps:

"I didn't know that, either."
"Neither I nor she knew that."
"He didn't know it, but then, neither did she."

Elliot: glad you found the Sue essay interesting. Years of exposure to bad fiction will make anyone bitter.

Thanks. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Winterfox...



Anything like that is always very useful to a writer, IMO. It's just as important that we know what not to do as it is that we know what to do.

Your 'rant' against Mary Sue characters is a very well reasoned attempt to kill the breed, which cannot be a bad thing.

I'm all for strong female characters (As anyone who has read my stories will know) but there is a huge gulf between a well thought out heroine (Or hero for that matter) and a Mary Sue.

Hmm, nice thread, one that I'll definitely keep an eye on and the "Arin i Asolde" page that Winterfox linked to in the signature is a true gem. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" />
But let's get to the point - I have a question (I would like You to answer as readers, not as writers) - what's Your opinion of prose in which no non-crucial, "physical" (relating to room decoration, clothing, facial features, items etc.) descriptions are present? Sometimes it simply happens that in a story of mine such descriptions do not appear at all, which might be a bit weird. People's actions get described, their emotions are indicated but nothing gets written about clothing, room decoration, facial features etc. Sometimes the atmosphere in a certain place is hinted at in character's thoughts - that's all. Would You have difficulty accepting such a thing and why?
BTW: The "Mary Sue" rant got me thinking about all possible cultural and social backgrounds for women-fighters. That's a whole lot of work for my imagination. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />
Cheers.

Boginka...

As a reader, a lack of description only bothers me if it results in confusion or it seems like the writer is using it to suddenly throw in objects out of plot convenience.

A character in, say, a bedroom, who picks up a knife they need but which has never been mentioned before is jarring because it isn't the sort of thing one expects to find in a bedroom. This kind of thing can put the reader off, whereas picking up a knife in an undescribed kitchen would seem pretty normal.

I would say a lack of description doesn't bother me in 'talking head' scenes, but a fight scene where you intend to throw furniture around really needs a good room description before you start. Suddenly overturning unmentioned tables or pulling swords from a wall display that has seemingly only just appeared will, IMO, ruin suspension of disbelief.

Hope this helps <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Well, I did say non-crutial... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />
To me non-crutial means: everything that is in it's right place from the characters point of view and isn't important for he plot. If someone's hobby is collecting knives and displaying them on the wall in the bedroom it might as well not be mentioned for a good number of pages (in the part of the story narrated from that person's point of view) but eventually if I want those knives employed in some way I will make someone notice them first (e.g. a guest). On the other hand if I want them to just be there in my head but don't find it important I don't even mention it to the reader - only I know that XYZ had a particular hobby ;-) Does that seem right from a normal person's point of view? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" />
And the second question: the fact that examplatory collection of knives is actually mentioned somewhere halfwy through the story seems sometimes nautral to me while to others it doesn't - I say: He didn't pay attention to his own collection as he hd better things to do, the first person who did notice appeared just now"
They say: But it's a strange habbit, one I as a readaer don't expect and want it pointed out as early on." Who's the strange type: me, them or both? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" />
Another thing is that some people claim to be incapble of reding stuff when thay aren't given tips on how to vsualise a chatacter, room, item. If I write "The council's meeting room" and don't describe it, to some people it many be just a phrase not a place. I am simply wondering is it common for people to *need* descriptions. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />

EDIT: That duel scene got me thinking. There are many possibilities of solving that, one of them unfortunately showing signs of the "presto" syndrome as I call it. And yet even that one could be well thought - the problem is I let my stories live and watch as they do that making sure it just is logical and this seems logical.

1.The duel didn't start suddenly, the character had time to look around the place taking notice of all possibly useful objects
2.The duel started suddenly and the character doesn't know the room well - he/she starts glancing in every way during combat and manages to see the chair.
3. The duel started suddenly in a place which the character is familiar with. Now, I can't have him/her thinking about the room for too long, there's no time for that during combat, and since he/she knows the room well glances are also a waste of time and make no sense. Flashbacks are out of question too.
a) I make the hero "interact" with the chair before using it to whack the rival on the head but unfortunately it still looks like plot convenience (just a different kind of it)
b) I make someone enter the room and describe it before there will be any dueling. It's a tricky one. The reader might actually forget that there ever was a description of that room and the chair will come out of the blue for him/her anyway, or some attention may be drawn to that location or even object (the author doesn't make unimportant descriptions so this room has to be special) and personally I don't want that - the duel and the "whack on the head with a chair" is still intended to surprise the reader.
Point 3 also applies in a situation when the hero doesn't know the place but he doesn't have time to look around either - he's too busy avoiding or blocking blows.

Cheers

Boginka...

I would say if you are writing third person, your readers have a good point - if you are writing first person they do not.

A person would have no real reason to describe their own room if they walk into it, but a third person narrator should ideally point out any details that may be of interest to the reader.

Indeed, I would say there was little point in third person if you are not going to put in much description.

Hope this helps <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Best for a coherent fight scene, IMO <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />



Glance = death. Having him fall over it works better <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />



This one is a definite pain. The best case is to have another character comment on anything that will be relevant prior to the fight scene. That way it will not take the reader by surprise.



Depends on if they talk before they fight, or if there is some way to otherwise make it look right. Two seated characters in a room are presumably on chairs. A character deliberately making sure there is furntiture between him and someone he is suspicious of also does not appear suspect. The key is valid reason <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

In writing, everything is a plot contivance. The trick is making it look as if it isn't. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />



If you want no prior descriptions, make sure your fight takes place in a room that would normally contain such a chair, or slip in a random compliment, like a character asking where your protagonist buys his chairs as he needs new chairs himself.



Frantic fight scenes are never ruined by characters falling over things <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> You get a lot of good near misses and desperate side rolling that way <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

All the writer guides created by my writing partner & myself are here underneath the story FAQs. Just for anyone who is interested <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

******

The following is my 'Fight Guide' which I feel may be of some interest at this point <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

******

The Good Fight Guide

If there is one type of scene that a lot of writers have trouble with, it is the fight scene. Neither good descriptive powers nor great dialogue skills nor the most intimate knowledge of your character imaginable are useful when writing these, making them arguably the hardest types of scene to write.

These are the rules I use.


1) A fight scene is also a character scene.

Every character has their own approach to fighting which will inform everything they do in the scene. Some will fight reluctantly, or only at need, some will glory in battle and enjoy every moment. Some throw quips, others fight in silence. Whatever else, your character is still acting as his or her personality dictates.

This is the first rule because it is also the most important.


2) Establish the scene first.

Before you start the fight, make sure you establish the scene well. You won't have time for a lot of description once the fighting actually starts, so make sure your antagonist(s) are well described so that the reader has a good visual picture to carry into the action. Keep any back history brief, as too much will detract from the scene as a whole. A fight scene is primarily about action in the here and now.


3) Fighting is fast.

When your character is fighting for their life, s/he has no real time for reflection or a lot of dialogue. Keeping insults short (Or split up, as shown below) - and preferably in lulls in the fighting - works best without affecting the pace of the action, which is hard enough to convey in a non-visual format anyway. Huge descriptive pieces should be avoided at all costs once the action starts.

Most of all, you are trying to convey a sense of speed, that your character is under pressure and in a real battle. That all they have time and attention for is staying alive. If you do it well, your readers will be trying to read it fast too, to follow the action at a breakneck pace - so don't use very long words either.


4) Adding the speed to the action

Short sentences. Single words. Lots of commas. All useful.

Example 1: I dive, roll, leap to my feet, dodge a flailing tentacle, dive flat again as an energy beam sears overhead, singeing the ends of my hair. I roll fast, keep rolling, the smell of burnt hair in my nostrils. I'm up. Dodge. Parry. Kick him where it hurts! One down in agony - but how many more to go?

Note that the description is kept to a bare minimum - it's as all action as possible. Action, reaction, and consequence. That is the heart of a fight scene. Note also the use of words that imply speed - 'dive', 'leap', 'fast' - all give a sense of pace. This character is fighting hard for his/her life.

Example 2: I go flat, then roll in case they decide to shoot at me. I clamber to my feet, dodge a green and hideously warted tentacle that looks like it belongs to a squid that died of the pox, then go flat again as a bright red energy beam goes over my head. I only just get out of the way in time, and the end of my hair is singed. I roll in case anyone is shooting, then roll again. It never hurts to play safe, after all. I wrinkle my nose in disgust at the smell of burnt hair in my nostrils. I get to my feet again, dodge out of the way of an incoming fist, inexpertly swung by a small man in a brown outfit, then parry a knife he tries to stab me with that he is holding in his other hand. I kick him in the groin, and he collapses with a groan of pain, hands clutched around the source of his agony. One down - but how many more to go?

See how that reads? How great a sense of danger or peril do you get from it? This character has time to smell the daisies! Any reader might like the description (or not) but they won't feel thrilled by the pacing. It doesn't read like there is any speed in what the character is doing, as he 'clambers' and 'goes' and even has time to critique the fighting skills of his opponent in internal monologue.

Even if you have the world's greatest descriptive skills, this approach will never read like a fight.


5) The art of the combat quip.

Example: "You suck," I cry, punching him heavily on the nose. He grunts, shakes his head in anger, and his fist whistles forward like a piston. I dodge desperately, This guy is unstoppable! "You suck so bad," I continue, seizing his arm, using the momentum of his blow to hurl him into a wall, "That the university of suck..." He's up again? Oh great! A shower of bricks collapse around him, but he grabs one, hurls it, and I dive full length to avoid, flip to my feet on the instant. "Thinks you suck!" I finish, dodging another brick.

If you have a long insult you want to use in the middle of a fight, split it up. Intersperse it with the action. Otherwise you lose the flow. Do not forget that speaking words takes time.


6) The art of the close shave

Even if you intend your character to emerge unscathed, a few near misses never hurt. Bullets whistle past, swords slice open jackets, or debris from a nearby explosion rains over them. Anything like this adds to the sense of peril and the thought you want in your readers' minds - that the character could well get injured or even killed here! A safe fight is a boring fight.

***

That's it, really. That's fight scenes in a nut shell. They aren't amazingly hard - just different!

I assumed your guide stemmed from your experiences with writing fanfic and, as I stated, I understand your point. I was merely adding a different perspective.



I never meant to imply otherwise, Elliot. And I apologize if my message implicated you did not explain your theory.

Any subject that is not 'understood' [misunderstood] by the general public, is usually quite chilling. I think that's where the tenor of suspense comes into play. It could be mental illness, which we, as a society tend to treat as an embarrassment rather than the disease that it is or it could be cultural differences by way of religious rituals. General society does not embrace ideas they do not a) understand; b) that requires a new way of thinking [i.e., change]; or c) that are foreign to them. Insanity happens to be one of them. And because of that, it's been exploited by many authors. So, to some extent, I agree with your statement.



I think the point I was trying to make (and did so poorly) was that the author should not 'excuse' any behavior. If the 'insanity' issue has been well-researched and employed as a literary device, the reader shouldn't jump to the conclusion that it's being used as an 'excuse'. If anything it should add depth to that villain or antagonist (and even, in some cases, the protagonist). That's all I was saying.

This thread has certainly gotten busy! LOL There are 15 or so messages I haven't even read yet. I better get busy. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />


Faralas <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mage.gif" alt="" />

Elliot,
Seems I forgot to mention - I usually use what You'd call limited third person. I refer to all characters as he/she/it/whatever and use verbs in third person but at the same time my narrator notices directly (not in dialog) only those things the current "central character" would. It's the worst possible choice of perspective but the only one I can write well enough for a longer time and feel it's fine. Whenever I adapt first person I feel strange - the word "I" belongs only to me (author) not to them (the characters). On the other hand I almost despise standard third person - I can actually see the narrator standing in the middle of a battlefield and...well just standing making speeches. A sudden urge starts to develop in my head at that point and I feel like making one of the fighters hit the narrator with anything heavy they have within reach. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/devil.gif" alt="" />

Not always - if the protagonist does not believe his/her rival to be a real danger they might actually have time for that. Especially is the enemy is drunk/blind with rage and tends to run into walls. Someone might ask: Why should anyone write a combat scene with an unskilled drunk? Well who said he/she is really drunk? He/she might be pretending...

In my case when the stories and characters start to have a life of their own paying little attention to me shouting at them to get back in place some stuff is just plain plot inconvenience <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

Faralas...



Always good <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I'm not sure a writer can ever have too many perspectives on writing. Each one teaches us something new <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />



I didn't fully explain it though <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

One of my most horrible habits is a tendency to over-explain, and I sometimes miss out too much when trying to avoid that.



All of which is very true <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I personally prefer that the reader feel some identification with the villain as well as the hero when I am writing human{ish) villains. I find that the most memorable villains have a worldview that the reader can actually agree with to an extent, or at the least understand. It makes the process of making a moral choice to support the hero unreservedly that much harder <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Alien-ness can be a very useful tool/weapon, I agree. But to me, someone who orders the deaths of thousands of people (Or more) out of some misguided sense of rightness is far creepier than someone who does it because he gets a thrill out of death.

Different perspectives, as you say <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />



I thought you made your point very well, actually <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> It's just an aspect of writing we don't quite agree on. But then - wouldn't it be boring if all writers everywhere used the exact same rules and standards? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Boginka...



From what you tell me of your preferred writing method, I do not think limited third person suits it very well. You really do need to be writing first person if you want to be mainly concentrating on your character(s) thoughts and feelings with a near total lack of description.

The main strength of limited third person is that it allows the strengths of both first person and third person to be utilised (Though to a more limited degree than the 'pure' forms, of course). The main weakness is that you have to use those strengths in order to avoid the fact that the style also compounds the inherent weaknesses of both styles.

As I've noted elsewhere, limited third person is very hard to do well, which is why I don't tend to use it <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />



Nothing gets someone killed faster than underestimating their enemy or taking their eyes off of a fight. Forget Hollywood - their fight scenes are about drama not skill. Too often their heroes win because they are the heroes, not because they are actually any good. A real enemy who is genuinely trying to kill you doesn't mess about <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

The only time you can really get away with your character taking their eye off the ball, as it were, is during a lull in fighting in a mass melee or if they have managed to get some major obstruction between them and the enemy. Failing that, have them run! They can do desperate eye searching whilst fleeing for their lives <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />



I'd be wondering why the hero didn't nail him PDQ <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> That's not a fight scene - it's a massacre <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

[/quote]

Heh. I think every writer knows that one <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> A good character always takes on a life of their own, and tries to boss the writer into letting them do what they want <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> It usually does make for a better story if we let them have their way at least a bit. The trick is not letting them get away with it too much <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

A pet peeve of mine, summarized best in somebody else's word from another board:



Point is, a lot of people try too hard to incorporate "deep" and "meaningful" themes into their stories, and think themselves clever. Confront them with a "What drug were you on when you wrote this pretentious tripe?" and they'd tell you in a roundabout way that "Your pre-Homo habilis brain cannot possibly understand the magnitude of my intellect and deep, deep philosophy!" I quite frankly think this is the case with a number of overrated, overhyped "classical" literature. And I don't care what awards they've won, be it Pulitzer, Booker or even Nobel. Some neophyte writers follow suit, and usually, the lecture/sermon/didacticism found in the writing is there to thinly cover the utter lack of actual plot or characterization. So don't look down on your readers; don't try to brush off comments and impose your delusions of granduer on dissenting opinions. Chances are that you are deluded as hell and need to wake up.

Which brings me to another point.

Never write angst for the sake of angst. Don't let your character wallow in self-pity or soul-searching for pages and pages where nothing happens. Most sane, discerning people don't want to read about conversations and inner monologue that go nowhere except to give the character to revel in his/her/its depression. That seems to be the case with various teenagers, by the way, who just love telling the whole world how miserable, depressed, or "insane" they are. (See example here.) This can spill right into their writing, and they often think it makes things "full of soul" and will drag the melodrama throughout chapter after wretched chapter. It's not cute, it's not amusing, and the only thing I want to do to these angsty characters is to deliver a slap to the head. We have the name for these self-centered twits, you know, which is "drama queens."

Elliot_Kane said:



I disagree. A limited third-person can be pretty sparse as far as descriptions go. There's no reason Farmer Joe should be rhapsodizing about the virtues of this far-away culture, or pondering the political climate of Kingdom B. An illiterate beggar is not going to express his appreciation for a library; he's not going to describe the library in great details. A duke who loves old books, on the other hand, is going to drone on about each leather-bound book by this author or that scroll of epic poetry. Likewise, this same duke may not be noticing the finer details of shady characters in a tavern -- bulges that signify concealed weapons, regular patrons that have a tendency to start brawls, and so on and so forth, while the beggar might just pick out the pugnacious-looking people for the sake of his own survival.

It *is* impossible for me to write first perspective well and I am aware of that. Form the two I'd rather start writing descriptions that use "I" too much while narrating. Though I sincerely can't see any good reasons to describe every corridor, every cloak one of the main characters wears, etc. I believe that most corridors in medieval-like castles are rather alike and anyone with some imagination should handle the fact I won't tell him how this one looks if it is nothing out of ordinary.

[quote] Nothing gets someone killed faster than underestimating their enemy or taking their eyes off of a fight[/quote]

I know that, You do as well but this character is, how shall I put it, a total layman in terms of fighting and one that has a whole lot of self-esteem on top of that which might get him killed pretty easily.

[quote] I'd be wondering why the hero didn't nail him PDQ[/quote]

Oh well, perhaps You've met people with a following attitude: "I am the master of the art so I'll give that ^&amp;%$^$ extra chances to make it more fun"? The only problem is, this hero *isn't* an expert fighter...