I don't smoke, I don't drink... I recycle
1. I have returned from Toronto, after enjoying nanoochka's gracious hospitality and meeting up with jibrailis for dinner. New life goal: meet every Nancy Librarian in the greater Toronto area.
2. I finally got around to seeing the trailer for 50/50, and I'm looking forward to it. I have to say that I really enjoy Seth Rogen, generally, and Jiggle seems to be in full charming and earnest form in this.
3. Some meta links now. The first is on how to take the feedback that betas/editors give to you and improve your stories: Processing Critiques
Excerpt: Here are some things I think about when receiving critiques:
1. I check myself. Is that irrational defensiveness? I LOVE my stories. That's why I tell them. But that doesn't mean they're perfect. So am I just being defensive about my story, or does the comment really need attention?
2. If I feel the need to explain my reasoning for a choice to the critter who commented on it -- that's a red flag. I'm not going to be able to explain my choices to readers. If I want them to understand my choice, I have to make sure it's clear in the story.
3. It's important to make sure the critter is responding to the story you want to tell, not the story they wish you'd told. (This is less of a problem with established partners. You're sticking with them for a reason, right?) We've all read stories and wished they'd been something else, so whether you're giving or receiving a critique, make sure it's concerning the story the author wrote.
4. The Short Road Home, Part III: always let your conscience be your guide - except when you shouldn’t
Excerpt: the subtle flavor of Short Road Home crops up frequently in the work of authors who have themselves spent quite a bit of time in therapy, 12 Step programs, or watching Oprah: the second an interpersonal conflict pops up, some well-informed watchdog of a character - or, even more often, the protagonist’s internal Jiminy Cricket - will deftly analyze the underlying motivations of the players at length. Case closed!
Not sure what I’m talking about? Okay, here’s a common example: when a protagonist apparently shows up to a scene purely in order to comment upon it as an outside observer, rather than participating actively in it. While no one minds the occasional foray into summation, both characters and situations tend to be more intriguing if the narrative allows the reader to be the primary drawer of conclusions based upon what the various characters do, say, and think. It makes for a more involving narrative. Hyper-analytical protagonists seldom surprise; they’re too thoroughly explaining what’s already gone on, what’s going on now, and what is likely to be going on in future to allow a twist to sneak up on the reader.
2. I finally got around to seeing the trailer for 50/50, and I'm looking forward to it. I have to say that I really enjoy Seth Rogen, generally, and Jiggle seems to be in full charming and earnest form in this.
Click to view3. Some meta links now. The first is on how to take the feedback that betas/editors give to you and improve your stories: Processing Critiques
Excerpt: Here are some things I think about when receiving critiques:
1. I check myself. Is that irrational defensiveness? I LOVE my stories. That's why I tell them. But that doesn't mean they're perfect. So am I just being defensive about my story, or does the comment really need attention?
2. If I feel the need to explain my reasoning for a choice to the critter who commented on it -- that's a red flag. I'm not going to be able to explain my choices to readers. If I want them to understand my choice, I have to make sure it's clear in the story.
3. It's important to make sure the critter is responding to the story you want to tell, not the story they wish you'd told. (This is less of a problem with established partners. You're sticking with them for a reason, right?) We've all read stories and wished they'd been something else, so whether you're giving or receiving a critique, make sure it's concerning the story the author wrote.
4. The Short Road Home, Part III: always let your conscience be your guide - except when you shouldn’t
Excerpt: the subtle flavor of Short Road Home crops up frequently in the work of authors who have themselves spent quite a bit of time in therapy, 12 Step programs, or watching Oprah: the second an interpersonal conflict pops up, some well-informed watchdog of a character - or, even more often, the protagonist’s internal Jiminy Cricket - will deftly analyze the underlying motivations of the players at length. Case closed!
Not sure what I’m talking about? Okay, here’s a common example: when a protagonist apparently shows up to a scene purely in order to comment upon it as an outside observer, rather than participating actively in it. While no one minds the occasional foray into summation, both characters and situations tend to be more intriguing if the narrative allows the reader to be the primary drawer of conclusions based upon what the various characters do, say, and think. It makes for a more involving narrative. Hyper-analytical protagonists seldom surprise; they’re too thoroughly explaining what’s already gone on, what’s going on now, and what is likely to be going on in future to allow a twist to sneak up on the reader.