Yay! remixthedrabble authors have been revealed, so I can indulge in my favorite thing ever: nattering about my stories and the writing process
( Read more... )
Wow, this was interesting. I always appreciate your meta so much, because I learn something new about the writing process every time. I think you've nailed that description of the two kinds of remixes, and I'm impressed by the way you're able to do both so fluidly in this shorter format. This made me laugh:
Her stories ramble and swell with detail that pulls the reader along. Me, I have to be reminded to put any description at all in, and I write in a much more tightly-controlled way.
We do have very different styles, it's true, but I always think of you as a descriptive writer: I think it's because, despite the spareness of your writing, you do manage to convey so much of the characters' exterior realities. I mean, when I picture Wilby Island, it's usually your Wilby I picture, because you've done such a fantastic job in those stories of building up the place, because you people it with characters who are fully-realized. And really, tightly-controlled is a good thing. I envy it: you were, I think, being far too kind when you
( ... )
And that's entirely due to my betas hammering on me. Honestly, the characters would be having dialogue in vacuum if it were up to me. See, betas are awesome, and there's no shame in relying on them to help you make your story the best it can be. I do think, though, that after some amount of writing and one's betas saying the same thing over and over, one does start to get a clue.
Yes, you often lose the point of your own stories. I think that's because you have a lot of cool ideas, and don't necessarily see the way to sharpen the point by leaving some of the ideas out (e.g. the Ray/Ray bits in Wind From the South). It's just your style: you write by starting with a blob and paring away the excess, while I write by starting with a skeleton and fleshing it out. I don't think either is inherently better than the other. I also am painfully aware (from others' recs and comments) that what appeals to me (spare, structured stories) doesn't
( ... )
Comments 2
Her stories ramble and swell with detail that pulls the reader along. Me, I have to be reminded to put any description at all in, and I write in a much more tightly-controlled way.
We do have very different styles, it's true, but I always think of you as a descriptive writer: I think it's because, despite the spareness of your writing, you do manage to convey so much of the characters' exterior realities. I mean, when I picture Wilby Island, it's usually your Wilby I picture, because you've done such a fantastic job in those stories of building up the place, because you people it with characters who are fully-realized. And really, tightly-controlled is a good thing. I envy it: you were, I think, being far too kind when you ( ... )
Reply
I always think of you as a descriptive writer
And that's entirely due to my betas hammering on me. Honestly, the characters would be having dialogue in vacuum if it were up to me. See, betas are awesome, and there's no shame in relying on them to help you make your story the best it can be. I do think, though, that after some amount of writing and one's betas saying the same thing over and over, one does start to get a clue.
Yes, you often lose the point of your own stories. I think that's because you have a lot of cool ideas, and don't necessarily see the way to sharpen the point by leaving some of the ideas out (e.g. the Ray/Ray bits in Wind From the South). It's just your style: you write by starting with a blob and paring away the excess, while I write by starting with a skeleton and fleshing it out. I don't think either is inherently better than the other. I also am painfully aware (from others' recs and comments) that what appeals to me (spare, structured stories) doesn't ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment