Showing posts with label lake. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lake. Show all posts
Monday, November 9, 2009
Planning the tense
Day two of "alternative plotting" is going well. Day one involved a discrete diagram ... of marble if you will ... of the various objects, locations, and the like that our characters have in common. Akin to "walking the stage", I flushed out where these people might go, and the like. In particular I developed a reasonable floor plan for the house, identified exactly what is in the marble shed and any furniture therein, as well as some basic dimensions. I don't have a lot of faith in the actual proportions - but at least I have the value and identity of things in relation to one another.
I've also been thinking about the lake. It's probably just a really big pond. The scope in my head of the property doesn't allow for a lake ... but a pond ... that would work.
Lots and lots of details that still need to be flushed out ... but I am seeing Marcy and Jane clearer than I have been, I see why they *really* got together, where Emily fits in, where Dillon fits in, and even where Jane and Emily's father fit in. I can also see that, with a great deal more research, this could easily develop into a "feature-length" mini-epic. So I'm glad there is room to grow. The question is, am I up to the task of making it all believable?
Speaking of which, I've been thinking about dialogue. I've generally stayed away from dialogue for a few reasons, not the least of which is that it can easily force pages to appear. It is easy to create a stammer, a pointless discourse or an opportunity to for a character to ramble on ... and really, I was thinking it was kind of dishonest ... which is just the kind of beginner move I would expect of myself. I've never done this before. Why, oh why, am I editing the meta-game before I even get to the actual typing?!
Today I mapped out the relationships between Jane and Marcy in a way that should help develop both characters in a much more intentional fashion. In addition, the method allows for scalability, allowing me to focus on grinding out words instead of simply coming up with content on the fly. I continue to enjoy and appreciate extemporaneous fiction ... but I am simply not at the point where I feel I know these characters enough to identify where they're going at the same rate at which they're walking. In my case and with my current strengths, I need to know where they are going before they do ... so I can focus more on how to present the perspective.
I continue to want to go back and edit word choice, sentence structure, and am regularly hitting myself over my own head because of the inconsistency of tense ... most of my sentences are not consistent. In addition, I have not conveyed a clear tense at any given point. Present, past, and sometimes future, are all covered ... without transition! The lack of controlled tense selection and migration is something to address at a later time, to be sure.
The best reason, to my mind, for developing more of the meta-details before putting "pen to paper" is that I can finally answer the question that the initial phrase implied. I stated "It all began with the house." I have yet to tell you what "It" is.
Well now I know.
I do hope you enjoy learning about it.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
More House
Narrative on this post (002)
The house needed more introduction. Did it have a dark aspect? Was there another house close by? I chose a lake because it made sense from the point of view of Marcy - her focus, at this time, is the sound and general feel of the house. A lake provides a relatively complex source of potential memories as well as being as a prime move in its own right. In addition, the lake is not natural ... so the aspect of it being man-made adds to the layering.
I also am using the lake for character development. There are only two ways to develop character of which I am aware - response and recollection. You might have a character that *appears* two-dimensional that eventually develops a great deal of depth ... not because they change who they are or their perspective, but because their real nature is revealed. This depth might be established via general dialogue, dialogue in response to the established present, or behavior that reflects a response to the new, or newly acknowledged, introduction of some new event. The depth might also be established via retrospect - remembering the past can often shed light on the current motivations for a character's actions.
In fact, one might establish characters as believable based simply on whether the motivations are realistic and whether the motivations might realistically be the driving force for someone to act in the way that the character is painted. If the motivations, in addition to being emotionally valid, are complex enough to resemble a real person, but simple enough to resemble a single view-point, a character may often be identifiable - enough that the reader develops a relationship with them. The danger for character development, at that point, is consistency. It is quite easy to develop a character over time comprised of obvious and arcane events and some reasonable dialogue. Throw in a real time, place, or reference, and the character will "come alive".
But the very things that can define a person well early in the story can often destroy the relevance or validity of that same person in later chapters. If you have a vegetarian who became a lover of animals and respecter of all life in response to growing up in Southern California suddenly fall in love with a game hunter, you'd better have a really good reason. Perhaps a death in the family, chemical inducement, or a con artist might all be reliable motivators ... or perhaps it simply isn't possible for the vegetarian to undergo such a drastic change. The real rule of thumb is to act like the vegetarian is real person; if we assign the name "Nikki" to the vegetarian and then, within a few chapters of introducing Nikki, she's suddenly fallen in love with "George", the game hunter, why? Did George grow up in the same town as Nikki and so she's always harbored some fundamental attraction? Is Nikki secretly a hater of animals and has been trying to get back at the ones that killed her parents? Is it that George believes he should give up animal hunting because of some newly developed affection for Nikki?
Or is it an arbitrary plot twist you've included?
Narrative on this post (002)
The house needed more introduction. Did it have a dark aspect? Was there another house close by? I chose a lake because it made sense from the point of view of Marcy - her focus, at this time, is the sound and general feel of the house. A lake provides a relatively complex source of potential memories as well as being as a prime move in its own right. In addition, the lake is not natural ... so the aspect of it being man-made adds to the layering.
I also am using the lake for character development. There are only two ways to develop character of which I am aware - response and recollection. You might have a character that *appears* two-dimensional that eventually develops a great deal of depth ... not because they change who they are or their perspective, but because their real nature is revealed. This depth might be established via general dialogue, dialogue in response to the established present, or behavior that reflects a response to the new, or newly acknowledged, introduction of some new event. The depth might also be established via retrospect - remembering the past can often shed light on the current motivations for a character's actions.
In fact, one might establish characters as believable based simply on whether the motivations are realistic and whether the motivations might realistically be the driving force for someone to act in the way that the character is painted. If the motivations, in addition to being emotionally valid, are complex enough to resemble a real person, but simple enough to resemble a single view-point, a character may often be identifiable - enough that the reader develops a relationship with them. The danger for character development, at that point, is consistency. It is quite easy to develop a character over time comprised of obvious and arcane events and some reasonable dialogue. Throw in a real time, place, or reference, and the character will "come alive".
But the very things that can define a person well early in the story can often destroy the relevance or validity of that same person in later chapters. If you have a vegetarian who became a lover of animals and respecter of all life in response to growing up in Southern California suddenly fall in love with a game hunter, you'd better have a really good reason. Perhaps a death in the family, chemical inducement, or a con artist might all be reliable motivators ... or perhaps it simply isn't possible for the vegetarian to undergo such a drastic change. The real rule of thumb is to act like the vegetarian is real person; if we assign the name "Nikki" to the vegetarian and then, within a few chapters of introducing Nikki, she's suddenly fallen in love with "George", the game hunter, why? Did George grow up in the same town as Nikki and so she's always harbored some fundamental attraction? Is Nikki secretly a hater of animals and has been trying to get back at the ones that killed her parents? Is it that George believes he should give up animal hunting because of some newly developed affection for Nikki?
Or is it an arbitrary plot twist you've included?
Narrative on this post (002)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)