Forum: Author Hangout

It gives you a whole different sense of being in the scene when the character is doing something

I agree with that. It's just that she was thinking more of a movie soundtrack affecting the movie and wanted to duplicate that. Maybe I took her too literally.

I'd feel very different about this in a fully-published book and in a serial. In a serial it's a bit too much begging for attention.

I'm also sympathetic to people who only read entire books. I ended Book 1 on a cliffhanger, and I think it was a mistake. I'm as likely to lose people who don't want to wait six months for the resolution as I am to get them to wait.

Of course, it's a one-chapter resolution and they could read a single serialized chapter that appeared a couple of days later, but ... that's asking them to do something I know they don't want to do.

However, in a complete book, no problem with it at all. One of the relatively few places where I suppose I do design for serialization, even though that's not really a priority.

I'm also sympathetic to people who only read entire books. I ended Book 1 on a cliffhanger, and I think it was a mistake.

That's a common mistake. The key, is to separate each book/chapter into their own unique conflicts. That way, you resolve the immediate conflict and move on, while the broader story/series conflict remains unresolved, overshadowing everything that follows. That's the best way I've found to handle those types of scenes, but it was only once I learned how to differentiate each book in a series with it's own themes and conflicts that I learned how to handle it.

#1, because I've used that technique from my first book onward

I write as if the reader has the entire story in front of him and can decide if he wants to turn the page and start the next chapter or not. One of the best feedbacks I got was someone complaining that they didn't get much sleep because they kept turning pages.

One of the best feedbacks I got was someone complaining that they didn't get much sleep because they kept turning pages.

Typically, once I start a book (novel, historical text or study), I'll typically continue readers until its done, pausing only for meals (as I'll often continue reading in the bathroom--though not in the shower).

If it's a saga, I'll typically pace myself a bit, but not by much. Stories posted online? It's a whole different ballgame, as I read them much like I do a series of related articles about a specific topic. Each chapter needs to stand on its own (once you know the basic premise and they aren't too late to remember what's happening). However, if I have to wait weeks, or even a month, I'm done with the book in its entirety!

Most of my longer works have very specific and planned musical references, basically a song that I felt was important so include it as a "soundtrack".

I've never really gone this route (again, not being fond of 'top 10 soundtracks' of any kind), but I'll use epigrphs for this. I've also found a particular soundtrack/album with perfectly suited a particular story, and while listening as I wrote it, the pacing helped to 'flavor' the narrative flow, making it sound more natural and nuanced, less like someone tediously reading a story and more like a natural rhythm playing out over time with the typically ebbs, flows and crescendos.

I've never really gone this route (again, not being fond of 'top 10 soundtracks' of any kind), but I'll use epigrphs for this.

I don't go that far. But instead of just going "they were listening to music at a club", I may actually talk a bit about the song. And it is normally quite obscure music to most people.

For example, if I had included a mention of "Come and get Your Love" before 2014, most would likely have never heard of the song (or at most barely remember it). So if they are in say a Motown club, I am going to throw in some references to classic Motown and Stax songs.

For example, if I had included a mention of "Come and get Your Love" before 2014, most would likely have never heard of the song (or at most barely remember it). So if they are in say a Motown club, I am going to throw in some references to classic Motown and Stax songs.

Details always matter and make a story both seem 'real' and helps to ground it. But those principals apply to ANY details concerning what's happening, and has no more relevance when discussing music than it does someone's hairstyle, or the descriptions of a character's favorite shoes. IMHO. But then again, I'm clearly in the minority here, so I'll quit defending my position, everyone knows where I stand, anything more is merely piling on.

By the way, I recognized the song as soon as you listed it, and while I can't recall either the lyrics or tune, it does bring back some fond memories.

By the way, I recognized the song as soon as you listed it, and while I can't recall either the lyrics or tune, it does bring back some fond memories.

Well, it made a major comeback after it was featured so strongly in "Guardians of the Galaxy". And am sure most remember it now. But before that, I listened to "Classic Rock" stations and might have heard it once a month or so. Now, I hear it like every day or so.

I don't think of that as 'cinematic', as much as I do showing the action and letting the readers focumalate how the characters are relating (i.e. focus less on their internal thoughts, and focus more of describing their physical actions, which is classic Show, Don't Tell.

As I said when I first mentioned "cinematic," for me it's "show don't tell." You rarely have a narrator in a movie telling you what's going on. There are a few, but I find them all boring. Instead, the movie unfolds in front of you and you experience it. That, to me, is "show don't tell." That, to me, is what movies do. That's what I try to emulate.

As to the article, she was discussing how to write a novel so that it could more easily be converted to a movie. I don't think of that when writing. My novels will never be movies. My goal is to give the reader the same experience a moviegoer has (with the understanding the media is different). Who used a technique (movies or literature) first is inconsequential. The technique is what's important.

You rarely have a narrator in a movie telling you what's going on. There are a few, but I find them all boring. Instead, the movie unfolds in front of you and you experience it. That, to me, is "show don't tell."

And that's why movies generally cover so little territory in 1.5 to 3 hours. Just like show, don't tell, it basically adds bulk to the story. That's why, at least in fiction, it's best used sparingly, so that when used, it'll be more efficient.

You rarely have a narrator in a movie telling you what's going on.

"Andy Dufresne - who crawled through a river of shit and came out clean on the other side."

"I hope the Pacific is as blue as it has been in my dreams. I hope."

"Andy Dufresne - who crawled through a river of shit and came out clean on the other side."

"I hope the Pacific is as blue as it has been in my dreams. I hope."

Less a narrator, and more the "Voice of God".

Two movies with narrators that are exceptions to the typically boring, are:

"Tombstone" with Robert Mitchem narrating a bit of background at the beginning of the movie, with mix of visuals from old Western movies; before a distinct transition to "the" movie. Then a brief narration of the rest of the life of Wyatt Earp and his common law wife as the camera pulls away.

Kenneth Branagh's "Henry V" with Derek Jacoby as the Narrator starting with the Narrator's introduction from the play, delivered "backstage" then, as he is concluding his introduction, he throws open doors of a "Set" and "Enters" into the movie... a couple times in the movie the Narrator is on screen to tell us of events not portrayed in the movie (the siege of Calais), or explaining why Henry's army is marching toward Agincourt. Other than the introduction, the Narrator moves through the scene of the Battle of Agincourt using the monologue from the script, so, like the stage play, the scene is much shorter, and with very few people, but on screen you can believe you are seeing a very narrow slice of a much larger battle.

Use of a Narrator for the battle scene is particularly effective, because the Play/Movie Henry V is not about the battle, but what happened before, and the results of the battle. Other movies of Henry V get lost in the battle (and are not all that well done in terms of depicting battle).

Little touches throughout the movie evoke the feeling of a Play, while having the great visuals of a movie. Watching Sir Derick Jacoby moving around, ducking, and dodging while the "combatants" don't seem to notice him, as he recites the Narrator's lines from the script I really enjoyed.

I don't believe you would find either movie boring, even if there are narrators in them.

I don't believe you would find either movie boring, even if there are narrators in them.

Actually, I hated "Tombstone" but it had nothing to do with a narrator. I thought the Kevin Costner "Wyatt Earp" which was released at the same time was much better.

"Shawshank" has a narrator and it's one of the best movies of all time. "The Bucket List" also has a narrator and is really good. I guess I was thinking of the movies that were mostly narrator speaking. I can't think of one off the top of my head. Those movies don't leave a lasting impression on me.