CONFLICT! From the minute we begin writing, particularly if we are in some kind of writing course, conflict becomes a main, and sometimes excruciating, concept. No story of any length can be considered publishable if it doesn't have conflict. For a moment, let's talk about the history of conflict.
Needless to say, it arose as a major concept in literature from the ancient Greeks. (Didn't most everything?) It was first described by Aristotle as the agon, or the central contest in a tragedy. Itwas always between the hero and the villian ( our protagonist and antagonist), the outcome could never be known in advance, and the hero's battle always had to be ennobling. The struggle between adversary and hero had to be long and drawn out, and the hero's triumph could never be easily accomplished.
Today, things are different. We always have conflict, because without it, there would be no plot and the storyline would be dull and boring. However, there does not always have to be a hero and a villian in those exact terms. The reason for this is because in more contemporary writing, we've learned that conflict can exist in more forms than between two humans struggling for some kind of victory over one another.
We have internal conflict, where the protagonist is struggling with some kind of disagreement within him- or herself, and this generally occurs when he has certain values that are in opposition with one another. If I can be so bold as to use one of my novels for an example, my MC Ben, in my pre-Civil War novel, lived the first 10 years of his life in New York, where he learned slavery was a sin. Then he moves with his family to Kentucky, where his grandmother's plantation is run by slaves. He doesn't know what to believe: in one part of the country, slavery is a sin, in another part of the same country, slavery is an every day part of life. When he decides to help his slave friends escape, he is torn between his own value...hating slavery...and that of his parents who condone it. A deep internal conflict that he must deal with throughout the novel.
We have relational conflicts that occur usually between two individuals who have close personal contact with one another: a father who wants his son to follow in his footsteps in terms of career choices, but the son wishes to do something the father feels is frivolous, such as becoming an artist or an actor; the mother who wants to control her daughter's life, even though the daughter is now an adult, but who is considering marrying a man the mother believes is undesirable; bosses who invade their employees' privacy... this has become a very realistic problem today with bosses demanding to know their employees' passwords on social networks such as FaceBook. These are conflicts that arise from incompatibilities the individuals involved relate to one another.
Then we have the usual external conflicts that arise from character against character, the protagonist vs the antagonist; the character against nature, which can be stories about characters surviving disasters, such as the recent cruise ship disaster, or from being lost in the wild, etc; the character against a machine such as a robot or computer or an android... I guess the recent Terminator movies and The Wrath of The Titans ( I think that's the correct name) movies would be examples of this; the character against society, and the greatest example I can think of here is To Kill a Mockingbird, where the struggle is to find justice in the face of society's overwhelming prejudice.
No matter what you write, the concept of conflict has to be a pivotal part of your plot. And sometimes, that means a conflict of our own to figure out the answers to the questions of who, what, where, when, and how our literary conflict is going to work out!
Until next time,
That's a wrap.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Monday, April 2, 2012
The A to Z Challenge: Today's Word: Body Language
Dialogue is the spoken language we give our characters. It is verbal communication. There is another kind of communication, or language, that we humans also use, sometimes without realizing it. That kind is called "body language."
Some researchers into human communication claim that between 60% and 70% of our communication is non-verbal behavior, or body language. So what is body language? It is a form of mental and physical ability expressed in body posture, eye movements, facial expressions, tone of voice, and gestures. Most often, these expressions, postures, and so on are subconscious on our part. How do they translate into our writing?
We know practically from day one in a writing course that we must "show and not tell." We learn not to use "dialogue tags" other than "said" or "asked," unless it's absolutely necessary to get our point across. So we resort to using body language, perhaps without even realizing this is what we're doing. For example:
Chris was determined that Sara know he was sorry for not taking her to the dance. He stood in her kitchen and said, "Come on, Sara, I'm sorry, you know I would have taken you if I could. It was a family emergency."
"Fine. It's okay." Sara kept her back turned to him, and viciously attacked the carrot she was cutting . ( Doesn't sound like it's "fine" to me.)
He came up behind her and put his arms around her. "I'm sorry. Honest I am."
She tensed against him, and continued to chop vegetables, pulling her arms away from him. ( Uh oh, I don't think she's accepting his apology.) "I said it was okay. You don't have to keep saying you're sorry." She twisted away from him, threw the vegetables in the pot, and slammed the pot down on the stove.
Her dialogue says everything is okay between Sara and Chris, but her body language says exactly the opposite. We are showing that she is still angry and upset, rather than telling the reader she is, and we are doing that by her body language. What do you think about what happens next?
Chris moved away from Sara and thrust his hands in his pockets. "You could at least look at me."
She turned around and crossed her arms over her chest. "Okay, I'm looking at you. Now what?"
"Well, you could at least accept my apology. I said I was sorry." Chris looked down at the floor, and rubbed the toe of one shoe against the grainy wood floor.
Sara looked at him intently for a moment. She sighed, uncrossed her arms and returned to the sink. "Just leave, Chris. It's over. Leave now."
When Chris thrust his hands in his pockets, we know he is anxious about what he is saying, and how Sara is receiving it. Why? Is he lying, after all?
Sara crosses her arms against her chest, which is a classic sign of defensiveness, or putting a barrier between oneself and the other person. She doesn't want Chris getting close to her, physically or emotionally.
Chris looks down at the floor, and rubs his shoe against the floor. Again, classic body language signs of anxiety, deceit, and/or guilt. When Sara sees this, she immediately knows he is lying, and she puts an end to the relationship.
When you give your character some kind of action in place of a dialogue tag, you are very often using body language. If you are not too familiar with all the classic signs of body language ( and often we are not, because most of the time we use it, it is unconsciously), do a Google search and you will find a wealth of information. Using body language aids your characters through non-verbal communication, and adds depth and realism to your story.
Until next time,
That's a wrap.
Some researchers into human communication claim that between 60% and 70% of our communication is non-verbal behavior, or body language. So what is body language? It is a form of mental and physical ability expressed in body posture, eye movements, facial expressions, tone of voice, and gestures. Most often, these expressions, postures, and so on are subconscious on our part. How do they translate into our writing?
We know practically from day one in a writing course that we must "show and not tell." We learn not to use "dialogue tags" other than "said" or "asked," unless it's absolutely necessary to get our point across. So we resort to using body language, perhaps without even realizing this is what we're doing. For example:
Chris was determined that Sara know he was sorry for not taking her to the dance. He stood in her kitchen and said, "Come on, Sara, I'm sorry, you know I would have taken you if I could. It was a family emergency."
"Fine. It's okay." Sara kept her back turned to him, and viciously attacked the carrot she was cutting . ( Doesn't sound like it's "fine" to me.)
He came up behind her and put his arms around her. "I'm sorry. Honest I am."
She tensed against him, and continued to chop vegetables, pulling her arms away from him. ( Uh oh, I don't think she's accepting his apology.) "I said it was okay. You don't have to keep saying you're sorry." She twisted away from him, threw the vegetables in the pot, and slammed the pot down on the stove.
Her dialogue says everything is okay between Sara and Chris, but her body language says exactly the opposite. We are showing that she is still angry and upset, rather than telling the reader she is, and we are doing that by her body language. What do you think about what happens next?
Chris moved away from Sara and thrust his hands in his pockets. "You could at least look at me."
She turned around and crossed her arms over her chest. "Okay, I'm looking at you. Now what?"
"Well, you could at least accept my apology. I said I was sorry." Chris looked down at the floor, and rubbed the toe of one shoe against the grainy wood floor.
Sara looked at him intently for a moment. She sighed, uncrossed her arms and returned to the sink. "Just leave, Chris. It's over. Leave now."
When Chris thrust his hands in his pockets, we know he is anxious about what he is saying, and how Sara is receiving it. Why? Is he lying, after all?
Sara crosses her arms against her chest, which is a classic sign of defensiveness, or putting a barrier between oneself and the other person. She doesn't want Chris getting close to her, physically or emotionally.
Chris looks down at the floor, and rubs his shoe against the floor. Again, classic body language signs of anxiety, deceit, and/or guilt. When Sara sees this, she immediately knows he is lying, and she puts an end to the relationship.
When you give your character some kind of action in place of a dialogue tag, you are very often using body language. If you are not too familiar with all the classic signs of body language ( and often we are not, because most of the time we use it, it is unconsciously), do a Google search and you will find a wealth of information. Using body language aids your characters through non-verbal communication, and adds depth and realism to your story.
Until next time,
That's a wrap.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
The A to Z Challenge: Today's Word: Anti-hero
Today is the first day of the April A to Z Challenge, wherein each day's post will be concerning a literary word beginning with a consecutive letter of the alphabet, e.g., today's word begins with A, Monday's word begins with B, and so on. Today is the only Sunday I will post, the other 4 Sundays of this month will be "rest" days, giving me a total of 26 days, 26 letters of the alphabet.
Today's word: ANTI-HERO. Do you ever have an anti-hero in your writing? I don't mean antagnosist, as that is a character far different from the anti-hero. The anti-hero is usually an ordinary person thrust into extraordinary circumstances, perhaps by his own volition, perhaps by society's inability to control certain situations, perhaps by the protagonist or the antagonist of the story.
The "hero" of the story, often the protagonist or main character but not always, is
usually portrayed as more attractive, stronger, braver, more intelligent, more charismatic, than anyone else. On the other hand, the anti-hero ( or anti-heroine) is simply "the boy/girl next door" type, no more handsome/prettier, braver, more intelligent, etc., than any other character in the story. Often this person is not someone whom the reader thinks will take a major role.
As the story evolves, you find this person doing bad things...lying, stealing, perhaps even killing...until you realize that he/she is doing these things for a specific reason that is for the good of someone else, usually the protagonist. The anti-hero can be corrupt but not evil or villainous. He does what he does for the good of someone else, or for what he perceives is the good of society... killing the murderer or rapist who, for lack of real evidence or because of a technicality, gets a "not guilty" verdict from the jury.
So how do you know if you have an anti-hero? Here are some of the qualities most anti-heroes have:
So if you have a character with noble motives, and who pursues those motives by breaking the law in some way...believing that the ends justify the means... you don't have an antagonist, you have an Anti-Hero!
Until next time,
That's a wrap.
Today's word: ANTI-HERO. Do you ever have an anti-hero in your writing? I don't mean antagnosist, as that is a character far different from the anti-hero. The anti-hero is usually an ordinary person thrust into extraordinary circumstances, perhaps by his own volition, perhaps by society's inability to control certain situations, perhaps by the protagonist or the antagonist of the story.
The "hero" of the story, often the protagonist or main character but not always, is
usually portrayed as more attractive, stronger, braver, more intelligent, more charismatic, than anyone else. On the other hand, the anti-hero ( or anti-heroine) is simply "the boy/girl next door" type, no more handsome/prettier, braver, more intelligent, etc., than any other character in the story. Often this person is not someone whom the reader thinks will take a major role.
As the story evolves, you find this person doing bad things...lying, stealing, perhaps even killing...until you realize that he/she is doing these things for a specific reason that is for the good of someone else, usually the protagonist. The anti-hero can be corrupt but not evil or villainous. He does what he does for the good of someone else, or for what he perceives is the good of society... killing the murderer or rapist who, for lack of real evidence or because of a technicality, gets a "not guilty" verdict from the jury.
So how do you know if you have an anti-hero? Here are some of the qualities most anti-heroes have:
- He's a flawed character
- He is often disillusioned with society, and this can be society in general, or in school, in business, in a family situation, etc.
- He thinks more about what is right for him than what is the moral thing to do
- He often thinks of revenge in some form for the "good" of his best friend, or family, or even society in general
- He could be thought of as a vigilante, but the qualities normally attributed to the villain who is also often thought of as a vigilante, such as violence and amorality, are tempered in the anti-hero with more human qualities such as idealism and a love of what he considers true justice.
So if you have a character with noble motives, and who pursues those motives by breaking the law in some way...believing that the ends justify the means... you don't have an antagonist, you have an Anti-Hero!
Until next time,
That's a wrap.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Saturday's Situation: The Myths of St. Patrick
Top o' the morn to ye, and a Happy St. Patrick's Day!
I'm not Irish, I'm pure French, 2nd generation American, but don't let my daughter hear you repeat that. SHE is Irish, and don't you forget it! Her father is Scotch-Irish, she picked up on the Irish part as a kid, and since she looks pretty good in green, she's been Irish ever since. And since Ireland and France have never gotten along, she prefers to hide her French heritage. But that's okay... I've never liked the color green, anyway!
But I digress. St. Patrick's Day is today, complete with a wearing o' the green, parades, leprechauns, shamrocks, and even Green Beer. Let's talk about some of the myths surrounding "St. Patrick."
First, a little background: "St.Patrick" was born Maewyn Succat sometime in the late 4th Century A.D., the exact year seems to depend upon which historian you read. He was not born in Ireland, but in Celtic Britian, to parents of Roman descent. He was kidnapped by pirates at the age of 16, and sent to Ireland to work as a slave for 6 years. He escaped to Britian, then went to France, joined a monestary and studied under St. Germain, bishop of Auxerre. After 12 years in training, he became a priest and returned to Ireland to teach Christianity. He adopted the name of Patricius ( Patrick) upon becoming a priest.
Myth #1:
St. Patrick was Irish. No, he wasn't. He was born somewhere in England, which in the 5th Century was more Celtic than British, thus he would be a Celtic Briton. He was also the son of a Roman official.
Myth #2:
St. Patrick was the first Christian Missionary to Ireland. No, again. There is evidence of Christian missionaries traveling through Ireland in the 4th Century, although none was very successful at changing pagan beliefs to Christianity. The most well-known of these missionaries was Palladius, who was sent by Pope Celestine in 431 A. D.
Myth #3:
St. Patrick used the Shamrock to teach about Christianity. A very endearing legend, but just that, a legend. It is said that he compared the shamrock to the Trinity of Christ: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, he never mentioned the shamrock in any of his writings. Some historians have said that the legend derives from the Celtic tradition of using the shamrock as a metaphor for "A trust in your soul," "Belief in your heart," and "Faith in your mind." Nevertheless, details aside, few Irishmen seem bothered by the lack of evidence and the shamrock remains the national symbol of Ireland.
Myth #4:
St. Patrick drove the snakes out of Ireland. Uh uh. The problem with this story is that Ireland never had snakes to begin with. Ireland was separated from England and the Continent thousands of years ago, during the Ice Age, and emerged as an empire completely free of snakes.
Myth #5:
The Annual St.Patrick's Day Parade is an Irish tradition. Not exactly. In fact, not at all. The practice of honoring St. Patrick on March 17th, the day of his death in the 5th Century, is an Irish tradition. The Irish people have, for centuries, honored his death as a religious event, possibly even wearing green, carrying shamrocks, and attending Mass, but that's all. The very first recorded St.Patrick's Day Parade originated in Manhatten in 1766, when some military units which included Irish soldiers in the British army, marched at dawn from house to house of the leading Irish citizens of the city. This parade had been held in New York every year since 1766, with only a few exceptions. It has become an Irish tradition born in America, and only recently adopted in Ireland.
Here are a few little tidbits about St. Patrick's Day:
Wearing of the Green: The color green became a symbol for Ireland around the early 19th Century. Because of the abundance of rain and mist, Ireland is green all year round, and certainly deserving of the name The Emerald Isle. But wearing green is traditionally only for Catholics, at least in Ireland. If you are Protestant, you wear orange.
Leprechauns are a symbol of Ireland: Well, sort of. In Irish mythology, a leprechaun is portrayed as a tiny little man, just under 2 feet tall, always a shoe cobbler as they made the shoes for the Irish faeries, and they are troublesome, contrary, irksome, and definitely unfriendly. They all have a pot of gold, well-hidden, but if you manage to capture one, you just might find that pot. The problem is, you will only do that if you can hold on to the leprechaun, and stare him straight in the eyes the entire time you have your hands on him. But he is a tricky little character, and so far, no one has been able to hold him and stare him down.
Corned Beed and Cabbage is the official dinner of St.Patrick's Day: Not exactly. Cabbage has always been a staple in the Irish diet, but it was always served with Irish Bacon. It wasn't until the turn of the 19th Century, when Irish immigrants began arriving in the United States, that corned beef came to be served with their cabbage. And the only reason that happened is because the immigrants couldn't afford Irish bacon in the states, and they learned about Corned Beef from their Jewish neighbors.
Well, guess that's all for now. I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade... ooops, sorry... but just wanted to clear up some of the mythology surrounding St. Patrick's Day!
Until next time,
That's a wrap.
I'm not Irish, I'm pure French, 2nd generation American, but don't let my daughter hear you repeat that. SHE is Irish, and don't you forget it! Her father is Scotch-Irish, she picked up on the Irish part as a kid, and since she looks pretty good in green, she's been Irish ever since. And since Ireland and France have never gotten along, she prefers to hide her French heritage. But that's okay... I've never liked the color green, anyway!
But I digress. St. Patrick's Day is today, complete with a wearing o' the green, parades, leprechauns, shamrocks, and even Green Beer. Let's talk about some of the myths surrounding "St. Patrick."
First, a little background: "St.Patrick" was born Maewyn Succat sometime in the late 4th Century A.D., the exact year seems to depend upon which historian you read. He was not born in Ireland, but in Celtic Britian, to parents of Roman descent. He was kidnapped by pirates at the age of 16, and sent to Ireland to work as a slave for 6 years. He escaped to Britian, then went to France, joined a monestary and studied under St. Germain, bishop of Auxerre. After 12 years in training, he became a priest and returned to Ireland to teach Christianity. He adopted the name of Patricius ( Patrick) upon becoming a priest.
Myth #1:
St. Patrick was Irish. No, he wasn't. He was born somewhere in England, which in the 5th Century was more Celtic than British, thus he would be a Celtic Briton. He was also the son of a Roman official.
Myth #2:
St. Patrick was the first Christian Missionary to Ireland. No, again. There is evidence of Christian missionaries traveling through Ireland in the 4th Century, although none was very successful at changing pagan beliefs to Christianity. The most well-known of these missionaries was Palladius, who was sent by Pope Celestine in 431 A. D.
Myth #3:
St. Patrick used the Shamrock to teach about Christianity. A very endearing legend, but just that, a legend. It is said that he compared the shamrock to the Trinity of Christ: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, he never mentioned the shamrock in any of his writings. Some historians have said that the legend derives from the Celtic tradition of using the shamrock as a metaphor for "A trust in your soul," "Belief in your heart," and "Faith in your mind." Nevertheless, details aside, few Irishmen seem bothered by the lack of evidence and the shamrock remains the national symbol of Ireland.
Myth #4:
St. Patrick drove the snakes out of Ireland. Uh uh. The problem with this story is that Ireland never had snakes to begin with. Ireland was separated from England and the Continent thousands of years ago, during the Ice Age, and emerged as an empire completely free of snakes.
Myth #5:
The Annual St.Patrick's Day Parade is an Irish tradition. Not exactly. In fact, not at all. The practice of honoring St. Patrick on March 17th, the day of his death in the 5th Century, is an Irish tradition. The Irish people have, for centuries, honored his death as a religious event, possibly even wearing green, carrying shamrocks, and attending Mass, but that's all. The very first recorded St.Patrick's Day Parade originated in Manhatten in 1766, when some military units which included Irish soldiers in the British army, marched at dawn from house to house of the leading Irish citizens of the city. This parade had been held in New York every year since 1766, with only a few exceptions. It has become an Irish tradition born in America, and only recently adopted in Ireland.
Here are a few little tidbits about St. Patrick's Day:
Wearing of the Green: The color green became a symbol for Ireland around the early 19th Century. Because of the abundance of rain and mist, Ireland is green all year round, and certainly deserving of the name The Emerald Isle. But wearing green is traditionally only for Catholics, at least in Ireland. If you are Protestant, you wear orange.
Leprechauns are a symbol of Ireland: Well, sort of. In Irish mythology, a leprechaun is portrayed as a tiny little man, just under 2 feet tall, always a shoe cobbler as they made the shoes for the Irish faeries, and they are troublesome, contrary, irksome, and definitely unfriendly. They all have a pot of gold, well-hidden, but if you manage to capture one, you just might find that pot. The problem is, you will only do that if you can hold on to the leprechaun, and stare him straight in the eyes the entire time you have your hands on him. But he is a tricky little character, and so far, no one has been able to hold him and stare him down.
Corned Beed and Cabbage is the official dinner of St.Patrick's Day: Not exactly. Cabbage has always been a staple in the Irish diet, but it was always served with Irish Bacon. It wasn't until the turn of the 19th Century, when Irish immigrants began arriving in the United States, that corned beef came to be served with their cabbage. And the only reason that happened is because the immigrants couldn't afford Irish bacon in the states, and they learned about Corned Beef from their Jewish neighbors.
Well, guess that's all for now. I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade... ooops, sorry... but just wanted to clear up some of the mythology surrounding St. Patrick's Day!
Until next time,
That's a wrap.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Friday's Focus: Contemporary Sensibilities
In my last post, I talked about the revisions I was making on my historical novel with respect to the issues mentioned by the publisher and her editors. One of those issues was "contemporary sensibilities." The editors said my main character's dialogue was "too adult and had contemporary sensibilities." Bringing his dialogue down somewhat to reflect his age ( 13), and still keep him in character for the pre-Civil War era was a challenge. Kids of that era grew up much faster than our kids today, and their speech reflected that. However, after working on it for a while, I think I've managed to satisfy the editors, although I'm still going to be looking over his dialogue again before I resubmit.
But the "contemporary sensibilities" threw me. At first I thought, What, Ben isn't supposed to have the same feelings and emotions that kids today have? Umm...well, actually, no. It took me some time to figure that one out. First of all, what does the word "sensibility" mean? The dictionary definition is:
Sensibility: 1) the capacity for being affected emotionally or intellectually, either pleasantly or unpleasantly; 2) capacity to respond perceptively to intellectual, moral, or aesthetic values; 3) sensitivity to stimulus or other things/events that make you react in a certain way.
I had to think about that. What many of us writers do... if not all of us at one time or another... is to ascribe to our characters thoughts, beliefs, actions, and behaviors that come more from our own knowledge and life experiences than what those particular characters would be exposed to. So is that what I did with Ben? The truth is, no, I didn't. But what I DID do, was not give enough of his back story so that the reader, most probably a MG kid, would understand where Ben's beliefs and attitudes came from, and why he felt about slavery as he did. Because of that, the editors felt I had instilled "contemporary" sensibilities in him.
So let's talk about that. Take the "N" word for example: in the days of slavery, up through and even far beyond the Civil War, the word "nigger" was commonly used. It and "colored" were the appellations given to the black community of both slaves and free blacks. It was not a slur, it was not derogatory at that time, it was used in everyday speech. Today it is a terrible slur, it is a word most people of ANY color sincerely wish would disappear from our vocabularies and dictionaries. If offends out "contemporary sensibilities," as does the very idea of what slavery meant, and what it cost the American people in terms of lives lost in order to eradicate that institution from our society.
The N word does not appear in my story... I would never use it, even if it were normal speech for that era. However, Ben's deep-rooted hatred of slavery had to come from somewhere. He had to have learned somewhere in his life that slavery was wrong, but being in Kentucky, on a plantation that owned slaves, where could his belief have come from? That was what I failed to adequately explain, so that it seemed to the editors his beliefs came from a 'contemporary sensibility' that someone of his age, living in the South in that time period, would not have had. In other words, he would not have had the capacity, the sensitivity, to respond emotionally, and finally, physically, as he did to a cultural condition that he had grown up in during that particular era.
That's where his back story came in. Not pages and pages of it, but sprinkled here and there throughout the early chapters. Ben spent the first 10 years of his life in New York City, where he learned from school and from daily life that slavery was wrong, that it was a sin for one human to "own" another. This was the culture he grew up in. However, his parents and older brothers HAD grown up in Kentucky, they had accepted slavery and owning slaves ( who were not considered "human" like whites, therefore it was okay to own them like pieces of furniture). When his family returned to Kentucky, Ben learned for the very first time what slavery was really all about. But even at 10, he hated it, could not understand why it was acceptable in one part of the country and denounced in another part.
His background is what gave him his first attitudes and beliefs about the concept of slavery and why it was wrong. When he moved to the plantation, his grandmother, widow of the man who had owned it, was an Abolitionist, and her beliefs enforced what he had grown up with. All of this back story was crucial to Ben's attitudes, beliefs, and values...his "sensibilities" of the times. But I had not given enough of his back story for the editors to understand why he believed as he did, and of course, younger readers would not understand, either.
It was not easy to go back and insert bits and pieces of his back story so the reader would understand why Ben felt so very differently from his parents and older brothers. But, thanks to my editors, I realized what a crucial part of the "front" story it was, and why it needed to be there to eliminate the issue of "contemporary sensibilities."
I hope I have described this intelligently, and given you all an idea of what we do... and don't do... without even realizing it. Contemporary sensibilities have to reflect the sensibilities of the time frame in which you are writing, and not be an indication of the morals, ethics, and values your characters would not yet have been exposed to.
One more thing to remember: the time frame you are writing in does NOT have to be historical for you to ascribe "contemporary sensibilities" to your characters. Ethics, values, morals, and the situations reflecting those aspects of society change all the time, so just make sure your charcters are thinking, feeling, and reacting to the experiences they would have had in their time frame, even if it was only 5 or 10 years ago.
Until next time,
That's a wrap.
But the "contemporary sensibilities" threw me. At first I thought, What, Ben isn't supposed to have the same feelings and emotions that kids today have? Umm...well, actually, no. It took me some time to figure that one out. First of all, what does the word "sensibility" mean? The dictionary definition is:
Sensibility: 1) the capacity for being affected emotionally or intellectually, either pleasantly or unpleasantly; 2) capacity to respond perceptively to intellectual, moral, or aesthetic values; 3) sensitivity to stimulus or other things/events that make you react in a certain way.
I had to think about that. What many of us writers do... if not all of us at one time or another... is to ascribe to our characters thoughts, beliefs, actions, and behaviors that come more from our own knowledge and life experiences than what those particular characters would be exposed to. So is that what I did with Ben? The truth is, no, I didn't. But what I DID do, was not give enough of his back story so that the reader, most probably a MG kid, would understand where Ben's beliefs and attitudes came from, and why he felt about slavery as he did. Because of that, the editors felt I had instilled "contemporary" sensibilities in him.
So let's talk about that. Take the "N" word for example: in the days of slavery, up through and even far beyond the Civil War, the word "nigger" was commonly used. It and "colored" were the appellations given to the black community of both slaves and free blacks. It was not a slur, it was not derogatory at that time, it was used in everyday speech. Today it is a terrible slur, it is a word most people of ANY color sincerely wish would disappear from our vocabularies and dictionaries. If offends out "contemporary sensibilities," as does the very idea of what slavery meant, and what it cost the American people in terms of lives lost in order to eradicate that institution from our society.
The N word does not appear in my story... I would never use it, even if it were normal speech for that era. However, Ben's deep-rooted hatred of slavery had to come from somewhere. He had to have learned somewhere in his life that slavery was wrong, but being in Kentucky, on a plantation that owned slaves, where could his belief have come from? That was what I failed to adequately explain, so that it seemed to the editors his beliefs came from a 'contemporary sensibility' that someone of his age, living in the South in that time period, would not have had. In other words, he would not have had the capacity, the sensitivity, to respond emotionally, and finally, physically, as he did to a cultural condition that he had grown up in during that particular era.
That's where his back story came in. Not pages and pages of it, but sprinkled here and there throughout the early chapters. Ben spent the first 10 years of his life in New York City, where he learned from school and from daily life that slavery was wrong, that it was a sin for one human to "own" another. This was the culture he grew up in. However, his parents and older brothers HAD grown up in Kentucky, they had accepted slavery and owning slaves ( who were not considered "human" like whites, therefore it was okay to own them like pieces of furniture). When his family returned to Kentucky, Ben learned for the very first time what slavery was really all about. But even at 10, he hated it, could not understand why it was acceptable in one part of the country and denounced in another part.
His background is what gave him his first attitudes and beliefs about the concept of slavery and why it was wrong. When he moved to the plantation, his grandmother, widow of the man who had owned it, was an Abolitionist, and her beliefs enforced what he had grown up with. All of this back story was crucial to Ben's attitudes, beliefs, and values...his "sensibilities" of the times. But I had not given enough of his back story for the editors to understand why he believed as he did, and of course, younger readers would not understand, either.
It was not easy to go back and insert bits and pieces of his back story so the reader would understand why Ben felt so very differently from his parents and older brothers. But, thanks to my editors, I realized what a crucial part of the "front" story it was, and why it needed to be there to eliminate the issue of "contemporary sensibilities."
I hope I have described this intelligently, and given you all an idea of what we do... and don't do... without even realizing it. Contemporary sensibilities have to reflect the sensibilities of the time frame in which you are writing, and not be an indication of the morals, ethics, and values your characters would not yet have been exposed to.
One more thing to remember: the time frame you are writing in does NOT have to be historical for you to ascribe "contemporary sensibilities" to your characters. Ethics, values, morals, and the situations reflecting those aspects of society change all the time, so just make sure your charcters are thinking, feeling, and reacting to the experiences they would have had in their time frame, even if it was only 5 or 10 years ago.
Until next time,
That's a wrap.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Tuesday's Thoughts: Writing to Specification
I'm back after a long absence. Do you ever get to the point where you wonder where you're going with your blog? Where you don't seem to have anything to say that you think others would be interest in, so you think, Why bother? Hmm...maybe that's a good topic for another post.
Well, that happened to me, but that wasn't the main reason I haven't been posting. I've been editing and revising my historical novel, The Freedom Thief. If you've been with me for a while, you're probably thinking...She's still working on that story?!
Yes, I am, but under new circumstances. The story is now in the hands of a publisher, and I'm 'writing to specification.' Oh, don't get all excited! I don't have a contract in my hot little hands, so there is no guarantee of publication at the moment.
This is what has happened: the publisher emailed me with a rejection, but asking for a resubmission, WITH certain revisions if I was willing to make them. She told me what the editors who had read the manuscript said, what her comments were, and said if I was willing to work on these comments and make the revisions they thought were necessary, I could resubmit it and she and the editors would be happy to review the manuscript again. Of course, I said I would be willing to work on the revisions.
Writing to specification means taking the four issues they talked about, and editing and revising each one. It's not as easy as it might sound. At first, I thought I would go page by page and work on each of these issues. Oh boy, did that get confusing! So I decided to work throughout the entire story on just one issue at a time. When I finished with that issue, I saved the manuscript as "Draft One." Then I went back to the first page, and started on the next issue, and when I finished, saved it as Draft Two, and so on. I'm now on the fourth and final issue, and that will be saved as Draft Four.
Their first comment concerned my main character's father and two older brothers, whom they felt were 'one-dimensional.' Yes, they were. That was deliberate on my part, as I wrote them that way to give credence to why Ben, my MC, hated slavery. But apparently, they are too much "that way," so I've had to go back and create better personalities and a more rounded characterization for them. This has been difficult, particularly since they only appear in the first 3 or 4 chapters, then nowhere else throughout the rest of the story. Actually, this is the issue that concerns me the most, and the one I will be revisiting for (hopefully) one final time, when I'm finished with the draft I'm working on now. I want to be sure that these 3 characters are as "well-rounded" as I think they can be, for the short time they are in the story.
The second issue concerned Ben's dialogue, which the editors thought was too adult for a 13 year old boy. In pre-Civil War era, 1859 to be exact, boys were considered to be men by the age of 14, and Ben is almost 14 ( turns that age in the story.) As with all children of that era, he has grown up much faster than today's 13-14 year olds do, so it is natural for him to speak in a more adult fashion. But the editors wanted me to tone his dialogue down a bit. It took awhile to do that, and still keep him in character for the time frame.
The third issue concerned a "passive voice" in certain places throughout the manuscript. Now I know the difference between 'passive voice' and 'active voice.' So what did they mean? Oh wow! How easy it is to slide over into passive voice when you have no intention of doing so! I was amazed when I saw how many places I had done just that. Little things like "There was " or "It seemed like" or "The wind was howling" were sprinkled here and there...I know better. That took some time, also.
The fourth issue concerned "contemporary sensibilities." That threw me. I had no idea what they meant until I sat down and pondered it for a while. When I finally realized what it was, I went to work. This is the fourth draft I'm working on now, and perhaps the most difficult and time-consuming of all. But I'm not going any further with this at the moment. I think perhaps "contemporary sensibilities" might make a whole 'nother post!
Now you know why I haven't been around. "Writing to specification" is not all that easy, and at best, is time consuming. But I'll be back soon, so please stay with me.
Until next time,
That's a wrap.
Well, that happened to me, but that wasn't the main reason I haven't been posting. I've been editing and revising my historical novel, The Freedom Thief. If you've been with me for a while, you're probably thinking...She's still working on that story?!
Yes, I am, but under new circumstances. The story is now in the hands of a publisher, and I'm 'writing to specification.' Oh, don't get all excited! I don't have a contract in my hot little hands, so there is no guarantee of publication at the moment.
This is what has happened: the publisher emailed me with a rejection, but asking for a resubmission, WITH certain revisions if I was willing to make them. She told me what the editors who had read the manuscript said, what her comments were, and said if I was willing to work on these comments and make the revisions they thought were necessary, I could resubmit it and she and the editors would be happy to review the manuscript again. Of course, I said I would be willing to work on the revisions.
Writing to specification means taking the four issues they talked about, and editing and revising each one. It's not as easy as it might sound. At first, I thought I would go page by page and work on each of these issues. Oh boy, did that get confusing! So I decided to work throughout the entire story on just one issue at a time. When I finished with that issue, I saved the manuscript as "Draft One." Then I went back to the first page, and started on the next issue, and when I finished, saved it as Draft Two, and so on. I'm now on the fourth and final issue, and that will be saved as Draft Four.
Their first comment concerned my main character's father and two older brothers, whom they felt were 'one-dimensional.' Yes, they were. That was deliberate on my part, as I wrote them that way to give credence to why Ben, my MC, hated slavery. But apparently, they are too much "that way," so I've had to go back and create better personalities and a more rounded characterization for them. This has been difficult, particularly since they only appear in the first 3 or 4 chapters, then nowhere else throughout the rest of the story. Actually, this is the issue that concerns me the most, and the one I will be revisiting for (hopefully) one final time, when I'm finished with the draft I'm working on now. I want to be sure that these 3 characters are as "well-rounded" as I think they can be, for the short time they are in the story.
The second issue concerned Ben's dialogue, which the editors thought was too adult for a 13 year old boy. In pre-Civil War era, 1859 to be exact, boys were considered to be men by the age of 14, and Ben is almost 14 ( turns that age in the story.) As with all children of that era, he has grown up much faster than today's 13-14 year olds do, so it is natural for him to speak in a more adult fashion. But the editors wanted me to tone his dialogue down a bit. It took awhile to do that, and still keep him in character for the time frame.
The third issue concerned a "passive voice" in certain places throughout the manuscript. Now I know the difference between 'passive voice' and 'active voice.' So what did they mean? Oh wow! How easy it is to slide over into passive voice when you have no intention of doing so! I was amazed when I saw how many places I had done just that. Little things like "There was " or "It seemed like" or "The wind was howling" were sprinkled here and there...I know better. That took some time, also.
The fourth issue concerned "contemporary sensibilities." That threw me. I had no idea what they meant until I sat down and pondered it for a while. When I finally realized what it was, I went to work. This is the fourth draft I'm working on now, and perhaps the most difficult and time-consuming of all. But I'm not going any further with this at the moment. I think perhaps "contemporary sensibilities" might make a whole 'nother post!
Now you know why I haven't been around. "Writing to specification" is not all that easy, and at best, is time consuming. But I'll be back soon, so please stay with me.
Until next time,
That's a wrap.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Friday's Focus: Setting, Weather, and Characters
When most of us begin writing a story, we usually concentrate on our plot and our characters. Making sure all the elements of plot are there, and that we are sure our characterizations are consistent with who and what those characters are supposed to be, or represent.
But our characters respond...or should...to more than the plot elements we've laid out for them, such as goals, motivations, conflicts, crises, and so on. What about the setting your characters are in? It doesn't have to be historical fiction for you to be knowledgeable about the geographical location, the towns/cities, the clothing worn, the jobs/careers, the schools, the food, the transportation, the electronics or lack thereof, and all of the other everyday elements we humans are surrounded with that your characters are also going to be surrounded with.
Let's say your MC is a 16 year old girl in high school. What kind of school is it: big, small, old construction, new construction, brick, wooden, etc. Does she walk carefully up a rickity old staircase, or run up concrete steps? Does she live in a big city with tall skyscrapers that she doesn't know her way around in, or a small town where she knows every street by heart, and most all the people? Does she wear old jeans, sweatshirts, and boots because she lives on a farm and that's all she has, or does she wear designer jeans, expensive sweaters and brand name shoes because she goes to a prestigious school and that's what is expected? Or maybe she wears the old beat-up jeans and boots TO that prestigious school because that's all she has, and suffers ridicule because of it.
Your characters react and respond to the setting in which you place them, so be sure that you know as much about that setting as you do about your characters. You don't have to use everything you learn, but you should know enough to know how your characters realistically respond and act/react within that setting.
Weather is another part of story writing that a lot of writers dismiss. Or, they use it in a cliched manner. How many times have you read something to the effect of: The tears running down her face coincided with the rain peppering the window pane, and her heart felt as broken as the jagged slashes of lightening. Or: They huddled together behind the hay bales, trapped by the raging snow storm and the would-be killer outside.
It seems that we gotten accustomed to using the weather to reflect our characters' moods, to the point that it has all become a giant cliche'. Have you ever thought about doing just the opposite of what the weather seems to inspire? For example:
She stood at the window, glaring down at her younger sister playing with her friends. How dare they be so happy and lighthearted, how dare the sun be so bright, the sky so blue, when her heart was breaking and the tears were racing down her face? Or: He opened the door, already relishing the black clouds that precipitated the coming storm, and the cover those clouds would give him. Imagine his surprise when he was confronted with bright moonlight and clear skies, a situation clearly not conducive to the evil he planned that night.
In other words, we use the weather to change and possibly confuse the circumstances we've put our characters in. We use it to showcase the contradictory nature between what our character is feeling and how she believes
the weather should be to confirm those emotions. We take the weather and we turn it into an element of surprise, both for our characters and for our readers.
Think about it.
Until next time,
That's a wrap.
But our characters respond...or should...to more than the plot elements we've laid out for them, such as goals, motivations, conflicts, crises, and so on. What about the setting your characters are in? It doesn't have to be historical fiction for you to be knowledgeable about the geographical location, the towns/cities, the clothing worn, the jobs/careers, the schools, the food, the transportation, the electronics or lack thereof, and all of the other everyday elements we humans are surrounded with that your characters are also going to be surrounded with.
Let's say your MC is a 16 year old girl in high school. What kind of school is it: big, small, old construction, new construction, brick, wooden, etc. Does she walk carefully up a rickity old staircase, or run up concrete steps? Does she live in a big city with tall skyscrapers that she doesn't know her way around in, or a small town where she knows every street by heart, and most all the people? Does she wear old jeans, sweatshirts, and boots because she lives on a farm and that's all she has, or does she wear designer jeans, expensive sweaters and brand name shoes because she goes to a prestigious school and that's what is expected? Or maybe she wears the old beat-up jeans and boots TO that prestigious school because that's all she has, and suffers ridicule because of it.
Your characters react and respond to the setting in which you place them, so be sure that you know as much about that setting as you do about your characters. You don't have to use everything you learn, but you should know enough to know how your characters realistically respond and act/react within that setting.
Weather is another part of story writing that a lot of writers dismiss. Or, they use it in a cliched manner. How many times have you read something to the effect of: The tears running down her face coincided with the rain peppering the window pane, and her heart felt as broken as the jagged slashes of lightening. Or: They huddled together behind the hay bales, trapped by the raging snow storm and the would-be killer outside.
It seems that we gotten accustomed to using the weather to reflect our characters' moods, to the point that it has all become a giant cliche'. Have you ever thought about doing just the opposite of what the weather seems to inspire? For example:
She stood at the window, glaring down at her younger sister playing with her friends. How dare they be so happy and lighthearted, how dare the sun be so bright, the sky so blue, when her heart was breaking and the tears were racing down her face? Or: He opened the door, already relishing the black clouds that precipitated the coming storm, and the cover those clouds would give him. Imagine his surprise when he was confronted with bright moonlight and clear skies, a situation clearly not conducive to the evil he planned that night.
In other words, we use the weather to change and possibly confuse the circumstances we've put our characters in. We use it to showcase the contradictory nature between what our character is feeling and how she believes
the weather should be to confirm those emotions. We take the weather and we turn it into an element of surprise, both for our characters and for our readers.
Think about it.
Until next time,
That's a wrap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)