Pub Crawl: In Defense of Love Interests:
edited 19th Feb '13 1:27:16 PM by chihuahua0
edited 19th Feb '13 7:42:02 PM by JHM
edited 20th Feb '13 12:48:14 AM by JHM
edited 20th Feb '13 1:20:29 PM by chihuahua0
edited 26th Feb '13 6:28:11 PM by JHM
edited 28th Feb '13 2:33:30 PM by chihuahua0
edited 5th Mar '13 1:10:32 PM by chihuahua0
edited 6th Mar '13 1:34:24 PM by chihuahua0
edited 19th Mar '13 10:31:30 AM by chihuahua0
- Clever trick. I should try that sometime. Granted, I might modify it a little to fit my own compulsions, but it sounds useful. It could also be a great source for stream-of-consciousness poetry in a pinch, as the article's author's example attests.
- A bit too formulaic as far as questions go, and the advice ultimately comes down to what every writer should be told from Day One: "Be your own toughest editor." Some of the specific questions might not occur to people and are therefore worth raising, but some of then just feel like either straight givens (tone control, etc.) or generic buzzword silliness—how many times do I have to hear the words "stakes" and "inciting event" before I take up freeform cliff diving?
- While I already came to this conclusion a while back—being the Station Master of the Dysfunction Junction will do that to you—it is refreshing to see someone raise this issue in this way. I really like Ms. Campbell's style. Instead of being basic or obvious, she is clear and direct, and believe me: There is a difference.
- I could argue that antagonism does not require a specific character to fill the role, given that external sources of conflict can easily be impersonal (survival stories, etc.), but I will let that slide on the basis that this article paints a pretty good picture of both the hero antagonist—a seriously underexploited character role outside of stories with an explicit villain protagonist—and the shifting antagonist—a subtler device that is even rarer. So good on them and all that jazz.
- Chuck Wendig strikes again, and does not disappoint. Sure, the words "inciting incident" appear (*shudder!*), but they show up without the usual hoity-toity aura of unnecessary technicality; and yes, lot of the advice is clearly aimed at new writers, but unlike many such articles, it actually works as a refresher without being cliché or obvious whilst mixing in some little things that even more experienced writers might not have considered. As usual, much appreciated all around.
- It's pretty old news that The Da Vinci Code is poorly written, but there is some base satisfaction in seeing someone actually dissect the thing's problems like this. Flog away, brother!
- I really like this article, not merely because it deflates a lot of misguided perceptions but because it doesn't come off as too soft or too abrasive. The wording is casual and straightforward, the points are strong, the few assumptions that are made actually make sense, and the message is important to the degree that it needs to be reiterated even where it should be self-evident. In other words, rock on, Catherine.
- Margaret Atwood continues to be awesome, but that's tangential here. This is a nice little interview talking about a very good idea that I think needs to see more traction. I was already quite familiar with the concept of serial novels and their history, and the idea of seeing a renaissance of the form in the digital age greatly appeals to me. While it might be preaching to the choir with people like me, articles like this are a good way to make more people aware of the form and help propagate it by proxy, so I'm down with that.
edited 19th Mar '13 12:49:01 PM by JHM