Forum: Author Hangout

I revise each paragraph as I go.

Do you revise the paragraph's content, or merely proof the spelling and grammar? If so, I'd consider that to be 'on the fly' proofing. By the way, 'factual errors' fall under the control of content editors (you know who they are, because they're considerably more expensive. (Mine is still free, but he's considerably MORE expensive than my other non-paid editors!)

Then I do on the fly proofing. As far as hiring someone for content, not worth it. Besides my readers tell me that it was Rockwell Standard in 1958 not Rockwell International, or that The Air Police carried 38's not 45's or that I was off by a month of the introduction of 707 service from Dallas to Philadelphia. These were all errors that I had researched before making!

Then I do on the fly proofing. As far as hiring someone for content, not worth it.

Trust me, there are very good content editors on SOL, who'll do the work just to be a part of the creation effort (hint: most are also authors themselves, so they understand storytelling issues like pacing, tension, foreshadowing, etc.).

Part of what drives up cost is that type of effort typically takes multiple passes, where they look for and catch completely different things in each patch, plus catching additional typos with each pass.

Also, don't discount reader corrections, as I've had readers send corrections for issues I didn't know enough to realize I needed to research certain things I didn't know. As a result of those additional details, I often end up creating an entirely new subplot of several chapters in the sequel.

I have thought of redoing a few of my stories, but will probably just work on new stories. My current sequel The Ark Part 2 is about 70% complete. Its taken over a year and is over 200K words. I think I will do something similar for Opening Earth 3 when I get to it. So, I have several stories I would like to expand and limited time to complete them all.

Jim's a decent guy (several of us use his services).

If your missing author was the same as mine, I suspect his health isn't resolved, as he hasn't worked for me since then either. I've also had two authors who I can only assume have died, since I haven't heard from them for years and they don't respond to emails (though the emails remain valid, which doesn't always mean a lot).

If your missing author was the same as mine

I picked my at random from the list of volunteer editors based on his blurb. Probably not the same person, but if you want we could exchange names via email if I can find my editors name.

I'd need to search my email history too, as it's fairly extensive and I've had a LOT of editors over the years! If you had a specific name, I could check his last emails, though, which would be a quick lookup.

All good before you post the story. Do you go back and edit, rewrite, or revise stories after they have been posted.

I do that also, but I think CW was asking about doing a complete edit or rewrite some time after the story is fully posted.

I've thought about doing that. I would definitely improve some of the stories I wrote, but would the effort be worth the improvement.

I've thought about doing that. I would definitely improve some of the stories I wrote, but would the effort be worth the improvement.

That's specifically why many of us ONLY post complete stories, so we can do the necessary revision on the completed story. It's also helpful if you're interested in publishing. But trying to revise a 200,000 word story is a fairly major endeavor.

But trying to revise a 200,000 word story is a fairly major endeavor.

Is revising a 435,000 word story a colonel endeavor?

Is revising a 435,000 word story a colonel endeavor?

One truly worthy of the old Victorian British Empire, since we're using British military rankings.

Is revising a 435,000 word story a colonel endeavor?

No, it's a General Hassle - I'm working on a story of 390,000 words for Mike right now. and did it on a 425,000 word story of his last year.

But trying to revise a 200,000 word story is a fairly major endeavor.

That it is, but it can be worth it.

After doing an extensive revision (my definition) of "The Catalyst", deleting the original and reposting the new version, I decided it's not advantageous changing an existing story, as it doesn't generate new fans, new sales or new fan mail. Normally, unless you completely change the basic plot line, rename it and create an entirely new book, it seems like a largely unappreciated effort (Hint: Never delete a story and then post a longer revision of the work, as readers won't appreciate the relatively minor extra 60,000 to 100,000 words.)

What I have considered doing, but haven't yet, is to 'rewrite' a book and take the plot in an entirely new direction. At the moment, I'm contemplating completely rewriting my original Catalyst story using different characters, different titles. Most of the major plot points would be the same, but the presentation and the personalities (and writing style) would be completely different.

Unfortunately, the original 1 million+ words is so intimidating, I'm nervous about committing myself to such a huge endeavor (even though part of the idea is to cut out some of the unnecessary side plots and simply the rambling, droning storytelling).

I'm sure I could now write a more comprehensive and better story, but it'll take much longer than any single book or multiple book series I could write instead. :(

But trying to revise a 200,000 word story is a fairly major endeavor.

That it is, but it can be worth it.

But trying to revise a 200,000 word story is a fairly major endeavor.

For me it is a new story and I only post finished stories. I keep going back to the earlier chapter to check for continuity of the 6-8 major subplots and several smaller subplots, grammatical errors, and shifting content to balance chapter length.

For me it is a new story and I only post finished stories. I keep going back to the earlier chapter to check for continuity of the 6-8 major subplots and several smaller subplots, grammatical errors, and shifting content to balance chapter length.

If so, then don't be afraid to make it a whole new story, switching characters, giving them added depth, changing the tile and repackaging the entire thing. That way, you'll get more 'bang' for the extensive effort required to revise the entire thing. You hate putting in that much effort, only to have people ask 'what's the difference?'.

If so, then don't be afraid to make it a whole new story

I think you misunderstood. I haven't gone back and revised/rewrote any of my stories and I don't intend to. As I said, the 200K word story is a brand new story - not one I previously wrote.

I think you misunderstood. I haven't gone back and revised/rewrote any of my stories and I don't intend to. As I said, the 200K word story is a brand new story - not one I previously wrote.

Okay, as you noted, I misunderstood. I typically stop revising stories whenever I reach a point where a simple correction ends with me revising three to seven paragraphs at a time. At that point, it's just not worth fixing, since the time invested on entirely new stories is much more productive.

Everyone seems to have a different 'quitting a story' point.

I have reposted chapters to fix continuity issues and/or errors pointed out by readers.

That's known as 'spot revising', rather than a complete revision where you review the entire chapter to fix inconsistencies. It's akin to spot proofing, when readers point out typos or grammar errors.

Do you go back and edit, rewrite, or revise stories after they have been posted.

Only if my writing style has had changes, so I revise to make the story smoother to read.

I have taken to collecting the emails on each chapter, then a week after first posting revise as needed. I also try to thank each of the responders.

I have taken to collecting the emails on each chapter, then a week after first posting revise as needed. I also try to thank each of the responders.

I also like to tell them how I resolved the issue, including highlighting the actual changes. Not only does that make readers feel like they're actively contributing, but it gives them a chance to correct me if I screw something up, or inadvertently get something else wrong.

Authors can't be expected to be self-taught experts in every field, but luckily, we all have a variety of experts among our various readers, which helps us improve our expertise in those neglected areas.

I will correct continuity and other story issues if my editor catches them, but he's primarily a proof reader and isn't actively looking for story issues.

As I said, that's the purview of content editors (I've got one, who's extremely good, if you're interested). I've had two from SOL over the years, though they weren't nearly equal in skills, but it's valuable having someone focus on content, rather than presentation.

I'm constantly editing/changing as I write. Hemingway always re-read from the beginning of his story, and when he got to the end he wrote where he left off. He did it for constancy, but while re-reading, he edited. That's what I do, except I start from the beginning of the chapter I didn't finish (not the beginning). People say that's wrong — that you write and edit with different parts of your brain. But I, like Hemingway, do it that way.

Not from what I've read. He typically would write a draft, crumble it and toss it on the floor before rewriting the chapter entirely. He may also have gone back, like you do, and make corrections, but he was pretty notorious about doing complete rewrites until he had the 'perfect' rendering.

I suspect Ernest 'wrote' like I suggested, by continually rewriting, but once he'd written a chapter he liked, he proceeded much as you do, going back and checking for errors, fixing them as he went and then starting again with the latest chapter. Thus he was switching for long stretches of writing and editing, rather than constantly switching between the two, like you do.

Unlike you, I find the writing/editing brain holds true, as whenever I finish a major edit, and complete the book, it always takes me a long time to get back into creative writing, which is why I try to continue writing during the editing process, although it's not always possible given the number of different editors I have working on different chapters.

Also, in my case I find I can spot more errors if sufficient time has passed (i.e. I can't spot that many errors right after I finish writing, so I try not to proofread until several weeks have passed. Again, I'll do spot fixes, but I try not to reread entire chapters unless I know there's something I specifically want to change. However, I'll often revise a chapter to change how the story unfolds during the initial draft phase, though I don't do that for each chapter, or for the entire book, but just for short segments or individual chapters. I also make multiple passes during my 'proofing' phase, which is separate from my 'revision' phase. Again, for me, those are separate mindsets and it's difficult switching one off and turning the other on. I can do it, but it takes a few days time until I'm up to speed again.

Your rewrite sounds more like my proofing, as your doing spot revisions, rather than comprehensive revisions or rewrites. Typically, my rewrite phase involves me not only rephrasing paragraphs, but specially looking for things I've left out, or adding additional 'showing' of events, rewriting the previous 'telling' of what happened (i.e. I read it looking for ways to rewrite what I read).

But that's why I started this thread, as I'm intrigued by how different authors approach the same procedure, and how different people are better able to switch between different modes of thought.

I've always wanted to attempt writing like Hemingway (i.e. completely rewriting entire chapters), but I have too much trouble tossing what I mostly already like).

I should mention I once completely re-wrote a novel multiple times. It was my first novel and, after a rejection letter with feedback, I studied the craft of writing fiction. As I learned something, I re-wrote it. So I rewrote the entire novel to show rather than tell. I rewrote it again to correct head-hopping (that was the hardest). I even deleted the first 2 1/2 chapters to get to the conflict sooner.

For my first story, unfinished at 3 books, I revised the entire thing and reposted it as 4, wrote another book and then revised the entire thing again. As a result, I've given up on complete revisions, as readers don't reward the extra effort once they've already read the story, even if they reread the story multiple times (i.e. the writing might change, but the plot details don't).

That was my 'extensive learning process', but I've learned a lot more with my more recent several books (five or six) as I varied amounts of detail, length of chapters, etc. I've received several comments about my most recent three books being much better than my previous books, but my 'million words' to become a 'true author' occurred with my original six book series (not including the multiple revisions) so apparently I required a LOT more than merely a million words practice!

readers don't reward the extra effort once they've already read the story

I read a story several years ago that I liked. The author revised it and I didn't care for his revision as much as the original. One of the problems with his revision was it contained references to scenes that he deleted.

ETA: To your reader, a revision/rewrite may not be an improvement.

I read a story several years ago that I liked. The author revised it and I didn't care for his revision as much as the original. One of the problems with his revision was it contained references to scenes that he deleted.

That was obviously not a thorough revision, as part and parcel of the revision process is, after you delete subplots and add in new scenes, you've got to revise it again to correct continuity issues (i.e. things addressed which aren't a part of the story).

In one of my revision, of my original Great Death book, readers dislike when I removed the initial sex scene as they're stuck for hours lying on an open field during a meteor storm, with the man's daughter a short distance away—even though I'd received fairly universal condemnation from female readers across the board for the one scene. Seems guys liked the scene, while women despised it. But then, they also hated the whole 'survivor harem' motif, so it was effectively a wasted effort, as no one was pleased by the change.

Revision = No change to the story plot or actions, but changes to the word choices and word order to smooth out the read of the story. As my style has changed and smoothed out I've revised my stories to make them easier to read.

Rewrite = Making changes that alter the plot, or story line, or other significant aspects of the story.

I was basing my definitions of revise and rewrite on Hemingway's writing style, where he'd rewrite each chapter he wrote, keeping the same plot points, but changing ALL the words and getting to those point via a different avenue. Thus the end result would, presumably, have the best material from each rewrite, but the essential plot wouldn't change much.

Your definition includes what I'd include as 'additional material', such as adding new chapters for a new subplot, writing entirely new scenes, or adding extra material in each chapter to make the story more detailed. However, I often do much of that (aside from the adding extra chapters) during my revision cycle. What I don't do during the revision cycle is to 'rewrite' entire chapters (just short segments of chapters which are hard to understand, which don't flow, or which need expansion).

It sounds like we need a more detailed, authoritative definition of what 'revise' and 'rewrite' include, as we seem to be interweaving the definitions.

Do you go back and edit, rewrite, or revise stories after they have been posted.

Only if my writing style has had changes, so I revise to make the story smoother to read.

That's partially what I do during my 'normal' revision cycle, I'll add more detail (but not plot points, change brief 'tell' passages into longer 'show' segments, add missing references and foreshadowing for what happens later in the story, and rewrite short segments which either don't make sense, or which just don't work for one reason or another.

According to you, I'm regularly rewriting, while I'd always though I was revising, because I keep the vast majority of my original language/story.

CW, over the years I've done a lot of revision work on my stories which has mostly been a case of improved word choice and word order - you can see the differences in style by comparing Ed's New Life with my Rivers Region stories. One of the old stories I started over a decade ago and haven't finished, for various reasons, recently had a major rewrite where I cut out about a quarter of it by removing the sex scenes, and it's been improved in the process. I took out the sex scenes because they all related to sub-plot I decided to drop, thus it's a rewrite of the story not a revision. I hope to finish that story this year.

In my personal author's dictionary, removing something that doesn't work isn't rewriting the story, it's merely cutting the chaff so you make the entire story stronger. What I consider 'changing the plot, is adding entirely new plot lines, changing the ending, or modifying the characters motives or in my case, creating an entirely new cast. In my dictionary, that's not rewriting short segments at a time, that's writing an entirely new story with a few similarities to an older story, but it's still an entirely new book. In order to differentiate in readers' minds, I'd even give it an entirely new title, a new description (to capture the new theme of the book).

I've been known, in my 'revision phase, to cut out a 3-chapter subplot because it doesn't substantially move the story forwards, only shifting it sideways for no real purpose (i.e. it's an unnecessary distraction to the basic story). Granted, I don't do that very often, but I consider it a necessary surgical procedure to make the entire story healthier in the end, similar to cutting out a cancerous growth that makes someone sick and shortens their natural life.

In the end, I consider a 'rewrite' to be changing the entire thing, either each individual chapter, or rewriting the entire book from scratch (which almost guarantees it'll end up at a completely different destination.

I also did that with my original Catalyst, the one I never used. I rewrote the entire first book, taking it from New Orleans and transplanting it to Chicago, leaving the characters intact, but rewriting the entire thing but keeping the main plot points the same (same plot, different words). I abandoned the rewrite, because once I started monkeying with it, the plot began to morph into an entirely new story, and I liked my original story. Thus, to save the great stuff I'd already written, I revised the entire story, taking what I'd learned about the characters and their troubles to enrich the existing story using the existing text, but merely 'adding to' the existing story (i.e. the plot didn't change in the revision, but I added a LOT to the actual story in terms of meaning, character development and how the entire story unfolded.

I guess that's where I get my definitions from. It's not just an idealized version of what Hemingway did, it's based on my experiences in creating a 'workable' version of my failed first attempt at writing my Opus! The second version failed too, but it taught me enough about the characters, to write a successful captivating story.

Unfortunately, now, like you, my writing style has changed so much, that I no longer feel that 'revised' version is written well enough to reflect my best efforts. So I'm once more, considering a complete rewrite, but this time with the understanding that I don't mind if it goes someplace completely unexpected.

In my personal author's dictionary, removing something that doesn't work isn't rewriting the story, it's merely cutting the chaff so you make the entire story stronger.

In general I agree with you. However, in this case it did work, and it worked well, but it was a sub-plot I was no longer interested in going into because the story started out as a collaboration and my collaborator was going to handle a lot of the plot development for the sub-plot. With them no longer being involved I decided it was better to cut it than to work on it by myself.

I know that I've been running roughshod over this topic, arguing with everyone who's contributed

And that's different from any other topics how? :)

(Seriously, just kidding with you on that.)

I can see what both you and Ernest are talking about here. Where I'm having fun is that my first work is one where I made the decision to get a several chapter buffer and then start posting it. So while it took me just over a year to write and post it, there were and are a lot of errors and mistakes I made in the content.

Since I'm not changing the plot of the story, I'm consider it a revision. I am fixing all the spelling and grammatical errors, and in some cases I'm rewriting scenes to either tighten things up or to change them slightly, but I'm not changing the whole plot of the story. Chapter 25 is done, only 50 more to go. (I wasn't kidding when I said 435,000 words a while ago.)

So now this does bring up a question from me for all you. Reposting it when it's done again. You mention not deleting the original. What do you normally do when you have corrections like this?

So now this does bring up a question from me for all you. Reposting it when it's done again. You mention not deleting the original. What do you normally do when you have corrections like this?

As robberhands suggest, you simply repost all the chapters at once, but I'd add a blog post, informing readers that there's a new version, just in case they want to check it out, or can't figure out where their favorite scene went. 'D

In fact, it wouldn't hurt to post them in installments, say 10 chapters at a time. That way, more people will be aware you are updating the story, they'll know when to read the next batch, and if they're obsessive, they can save and compare the different versions to see if it actually changed the story at all.

By the way, congratulations on undertaking the self-correcting process. It's a lot of work, but it makes the story better in the long haul. But don't be afraid to cut any unnecessary subplot which don't actually advance the main plot in some way. Although Ernest and I disagreed about how to consider those, we both agree it's better for the book to chop them out (when necessary) during the revision process.

I guess if you believe your story needs to be changed, you revise it. But if you need to start over, because it's written so terribly or it is wrong, you rewrite it.

Once again, I started the discussion talking about rewriting whole chapters, not the entire book. When you do that, the new chapter doesn't very that much from the original. But as you add new details and slight variations, each chapter you rewrite/revise after that gradually drifts farther and farther from the original. Generally, that's a good thing, but for a potential 435K word book, or my own 1,100,000 word series, it's intimidating to even consider. Luckily, while the per chapter size is likely increase, you can also trim enough subplots to eliminate quite a few chapters to counter the growth.

Since characters originate in the author's mind, I always consider them to be an extension of the authors and their fantasies.

If a character has emotional problems, the problems could be by design or they could be personal problems the author is suppressing. Not intended as a personal attack, CW, just an observation.

Curiously, when I write a story the characters behave like I want them to behave and they do exactly what I want them to do. I like to believe they accept my authority as the author, which makes it much easier to write my stories.

Oddly, I've found the complete opposite. I've discovered, in most cases of writer's block, it's because the characters themselves don't like what they're being forced to do, realizing the actions are contrary to their character traits, and they simply 'refuse to play along'. Whenever anyone complains of being stuck in any given story, I've always advised the author to step back and consider why the characters are balking, as that's the quickest way to identify the problem and resolve it.

Of course, it's the author who's directing the action, but often, we continue to push our original plot points, regardless of how the characters have evolved over the course of the book. At a certain point, we realize their a discrepancy, and we therefore encounter problems when we try to force the character's in contradictory positions.

In my writing, I'm often led by the characters. I basically define the characters first, put them into particular settings with an establish conflict, and then let them drive the story. When you do that, you basically have to type as quickly as you can, before the characters move on without you.

Do you believe because you describe your invented characters as if they'd have a life outside of your imagination that your conclusions become somehow more compelling? It also doesn't matter whether you voice your opinions as 'I' or 'we', because I know it's only you.

I can accept some amount of artsy gibberish but you're straining my tolerance.

I was discussing a common problem among authors, and my own way of addressing it, rather than 'artsy gibberish'. That's simply my way of expressing the idea, as it seems to ring 'truer' for most authors than "I have my own hangups". Making it personal (to me) makes the recommended solution irrelevant to others.

Also, saying that ALL characters are a reflection of the author's thinking is disingenuous, as it clearly implies that NO author is capable to reflecting on anyone, other than themselves, which is clearly not the case (some just do it better than others).

I then went on to admit that the problems ARE subconscious, but went on to explain that 'thinking of them as character extensions' provide us with a better handle on it, than does dismissing the notion entirely.

I think your response emphasizes the last point. Rather than deal with the basic concepts, your first response tends to be to attack anyone who says something you didn't first think of yourself. Thus anytime anyone tries to discuss a technique you don't use is obviously 'making shit up' and the techniques are, by definition, pure fantasy.

Ross got what I was going for, but you have trouble making it past the first line of ANYONE's response on the forum. Since we're discussing projecting our own internal shortcomings ...

Let me guess; I'm trying to shut down the discussion, am I?

No. You've got strong points, as I continue making points that I can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, but that doesn't mean that they're not worth considering in an open forum about writing.

I just think your bar concerning what's valid to discuss about writing is too strict to help, as you start out with a set attitude about what you'll consider and what you'll reject, virtually out of hand, based merely on how it's phrased in the opening paragraph.

@awnlee & @robberhands

I haven't personally experienced what CW's talking about, but I've heard other authors complaining about similar problems. Some of them go to what I consider to be extreme lengths to avoid them, giving each character a detailed bio and mapping each scene in detail so that the whole story is effectively straitjacketed before the author begins writing in earnest.

My main point, and yes, I do have one, is that the 'personification' of my characters is a handy way for me to conceptualize an attempt to allow my stories to evolve naturally (i.e. I'd rather avoid setting up a straitjacket approach to writing, and thinking of my characters of 'living entities' allows me to trust the story to unfold on it's own, rather than my dictating how it unfolds at each step. Thus I'm often surprised by how the story unfolds, and learn a lot in the process (i.e. my characters effectively continue to 'teach' me better writing techniques).

I haven't personally experienced what CW's talking about, but I've heard other authors complaining about similar problems. Some of them go to what I consider to be extreme lengths to avoid them, giving each character a detailed bio and mapping each scene in detail so that the whole story is effectively straitjacketed before the author begins writing in earnest.

AJ

giving each character a detailed bio

Is the origin of a character somehow different because an author wrote a detailed biography of the character? To me that is only documenting what the author's imagination created, so they don't forget it.

Your characters come from your imagination. Your imagination uses people you know to create those characters and your imagination gives them traits similar to those of people you know who are similar to what your imagination wants those characters to be.

Is the origin of a character somehow different because an author wrote a detailed biography of the character? To me that is only documenting what the author's imagination created, so they don't forget it.

Despite my insistence on knowing a character's motivations and how they'll respond to any given situations, I rarely write out a detailed biography. Instead, just as I do with plot outlines, I keep the entire thing in my head, often for months at a time as I prepare to write the story.

Doing that (not writing things out) allows the ideas to adapt and evolve over time, rather than becoming static and overly formal.

My treating characters as 'living creatures' is merely a mental shorthand for me to 'trust a story', that sometimes, my subconscious knows better what will work out than my presuppositions do. While we all write from our own perspectives, I like to believe that my particular approach leaves me better able to change my story on the fly as I write. Since I don't expect my characters to act a certain way, I'm more apt to change the story as the individual chapters change and morph over time.

Again, it's more technique than 'artsy delusions'. And again, you've got a nasty tendency to automatically reject anything you aren't already doing, rather than considering alternative suggestions. That's what I keep complaining about, you keep trying to shut down conversations, rather than merely letting conversations you aren't personally interested in unfold on their own.

And again, you've got a nasty tendency to automatically reject anything you aren't already doing,

Since you don't know what I am doing, you are speaking out of turn.

I am not out to shutdown the conversation. What I want to shutdown is your longwinded comments about:

1. You going on about the 'proper' way to write.

2. Your constant comments about 'In my story XYZ, I ......"

3. Holding up your stories as if they are outstanding examples of writing.

In other words, stop making all of your posts about you.

In other words, stop making all of your posts about you.

So, your point isn't that you dislike honest communications, you just dislike me personally? Then how about everyone else you pick fights with, like Ross? Do you personally despise him too, or do you simply despise anyone who doesn't agree with you?

The observations I make about you aren't personally, they're based on your actions. We've had some decent communications, but whenever ANYONE says ANYTHING you don't inherently agree with, you take over the entire thread, insisting that they have NO RIGHT to say ANYTHING on the subject because YOU don't like their opinion!

Bullshit, CW.

whenever ANYONE says ANYTHING you don't inherently agree with, you take over the entire thread, insisting that they have NO RIGHT to say ANYTHING on the subject because YOU don't like their opinion!

I converse with many people and we go back and forth disputing each others position. I disagree with many of the opinions expressed in this Forum, but don't comment on the opinions. When I do comment, it is usually between me and the other person. Others continue to post.

Go back through my posts during the past 4 years and show me one place where I told a poster that they did not have the right to speak in the Forum. You won't find anyone other than Ross, and I spoke out about him because he was bad mouthing my wife in a public Forum.

What your ire is really about, CW, is you can't stand someone taking the limelight off of you. You want to be the center of attention, but many of us just ignore you.

I and other people are enjoying a conversation about a topic and YOU pick an aspect of the conversation to respond to. You spend about 1 maybe 2 sentences on that aspect and then go off on a tangent about something totally different that YOU want to talk about. You want to dominate and control the conversation in a thread and when someone like DS or I disagree with you or speak out about what you say, you go off on another of your rants about us shutting down the thread's conversation.

I usually just ignore your posts as not worthy of being read for they are just egotistical opinions with little if any supporting facts, other than the ones you cite without a link and then say you're not here to tell us where to look, we need to go find it ourselves. That makes me wonder if you made those facts up.

The only reason I responded to you in this thread was Awnlee and I were chatting and YOU attacked me because YOU didn't like something I said to Awnlee. I notice that he stopped posting in this thread because YOU shutdown the communications he and I started. If anyone on this site is shutting down conversation it is YOU.

To me that is only documenting what the author's imagination created, so they don't forget it.

I believe that's the point, to ensure a character stays true to the author's original conception. So no name changing or forgetting the character's age, penis and/or breast size, motivations, friends, enemies etc.

AJ

Let's face it, the character's know their own lives better than the author does, so when they refuse to do as you dictate, it's often a sign that you're forcing them to act against their own inclinations, a frequent cause of writer's block.

I actually agree with you on this one. REP is partially correct in his thoughts:

Since characters originate in the author's mind, I always consider them to be an extension of the authors and their fantasies.

The character originates in the authors conscious mind. A lot of the character traits are not actual decisions or thoughts made by the author, they're subconscious at best.

they're subconscious at best.

I think that is where fantasies also begin. They rise to the conscious mind with their character traits already part of the character. The mind can be a deep dark place.

I think that is where fantasies also begin. They rise to the conscious mind with their character traits already part of the character. The mind can be a deep dark place.

Two quick quotes, both by Anaïs Nin:

"We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are."

and

"The role of a writer is not to say what we can all say, but what we are unable to say."

Okay, sorry, I cheated, as there's yet another quote that fits the situation:

"If you do not breathe through writing, if you do not cry out in writing, or sing in writing, then don't write, because our culture has no use for it."

In short, writing doesn't stand out simply because we can force characters into situations, it stands out because we can show how people really feel and truly react, and do so in a way which resonates with readers, often catching them by surprise by something they, on reflection, find to be quite normal.

Part of that are our own internal expectations, but much more is opening ourselves to the experiences of others, and trying to capture their emotions by developing them farther than life normally allows.

... we can show how people really feel and truly react ...

I wasn't talking about forcing a character into a situation. I was addressing where a character comes from.

I also wasn't addressing characters standing out. Whether they do or not is determined by how the author develops and handles the character.

None of us really knows what other people feel and how they will react. We often make good guesses that seem to match what we experience of their actions and spoken words. The way a person feels and what they think is not always reflected by their words and actions. We don't always know why a person speaks or acts in an observed manner, and if they tell us why, they may not be sharing the real reason behind their words and actions.

Does that make a case in favour of 'show, don't tell'? If nobody really knows what anybody else is thinking, wouldn't showing (so readers observe characters' actions) mean different readers could interpret the actions of characters differently, but the characters could still seem authentic to each reader.

I prefer creating flawed characters, so the reader is never quite sure what the character will do, or whether what he's thinking at the moment will determine how he'll act in the future.

In my scenario, rather than leaving the character undefined, I'll plant (foreshadow) doubts in the character's mind, so the reader is never entirely sure how the characters will behave. Half of foreshadowing is planting red herrings, instead of merely giving away plot spoilers. Keeping readers guessing is the key to surprising them with a story.

However, that's something else that takes planning. If you want readers to doubt a character's thoughts, you need to show how they are conflicted, and how they're likely to go in either direction.

None of us really knows what other people feel and how they will react. We often make good guesses that seem to match what we experience of their actions and spoken words. The way a person feels and what they think is not always reflected by their words and actions. We don't always know why a person speaks or acts in an observed manner, and if they tell us why, they may not be sharing the real reason behind their words and actions.

I accept and acknowledge that, but that's a long ways from 'every character is only a reflection of the author's own viewpoints'. One of the goals of writing is to not only see things in an entirely new way, but figuring out ways to reach readers, and getting them to engage with the story. And we do that by placing ourselves into the lives of others and seeing where that leads. True, we may not completely succeed at it, but if we don't at least try, we're doomed to only writing about what we currently know, rather than trying new things. As Ross suggests, trying new techniques stretches our horizons as authors, and either confirms what others have tried, or proves that they're simply full of crap (though, again, there's room for more than simply those two extremes).

a long ways from 'every character is only a reflection of the author's own viewpoints'.

Sounds like you are saying someone else creates a story's characters other than the author.

The author is having the character express viewpoints and those viewpoints come from the author, not the character.

Other than the first sentence, your comments are basically about how the author gathers viewpoints.

Other than the first sentence, your comments are basically about how the author gathers viewpoints.

I'm saying that you point, about every character being based on the author's personality, is overly simplistic and misleading. True, the authors writes them all, but not all stories are, by definition, about the author, which is a mistake that readers often make (and why many authors write to author's of pedo stories or incest stories and ask whether they can 'trade' sisters or daughters).

I understand what you're saying, about the author decided what words to put into a character's mouth, but the tendency to attribute character actions is fairly pervasive, so I'd rather not encourage that assumption among the gullible and simple-minded.

which is a mistake that readers often make (and why many authors write to author's of pedo stories or incest stories and ask whether they can 'trade' sisters or daughters).

CW, I think you have a typo in this quoted area, I suspect you have an author where you mean reader.

CW, I think you have a typo in this quoted area, I suspect you have an author where you mean reader.

Yep, you're right. I meant readers.

The character originates in the authors conscious mind. A lot of the character traits are not actual decisions or thoughts made by the author, they're subconscious at best.

That's partially true, though of course, many times specific characters are based on people we've known, so we expect them to react like those people would, rather than how we ourselves would. However, that reasoning is somewhat circular, because we're actually projecting our own views of those character's traits, so we choose 'bad outcomes' for those who we disagree with and 'good outcomes' for the people who behave as we expect. However, writer's block is often how the subconscious pulls us writer's back, telling us we're losing touch with our own creations. In cases like that, it's wise to stop and question what's triggering the reaction, rather than fighting it and trying to force the characters to stick with our predefined plot outlines. Once you figure out the internal conflict, you can usually adapt the plot (or more specifically the particular scenes) and continue on.

If the story is readable, even with many mistakes in misspellings, grammar, etc., if the author tells a good story and I care about what happens to the characters, I will enjoy the story. I guess I have a higher tolerance for mistakes in stories I get to read for free.

I tend to agree with this. I will usually note the errors and send a note to the author. It is up to them whether they make the corrections or not.

I have my own solution to any errors that really bother me though. Since I save a copy of the story, I make the corrections in MY PERSONAL copy, much as I might make corrections in a deadtree book.

I tend to agree with this. I will usually note the errors and send a note to the author. It is up to them whether they make the corrections or not.

When there were only a few errors, I used to point out the ones that ruined the understanding of the story, such as name changes and continuity errors. But I found that too many of the authors were issuing the stories as e-books and pulling them from SOL.

If an author leaves the story on SOL then I don't mind so much, but I feel cheated when my free expertise contributes to an author making money.

AJ

Authors agree when posting to the period during which they cannot remove their stories from the site.

I'm pretty sure more than one story, for which I've pointed out mistakes to the author, has been pulled within a week of completion.

AJ