Wow. It's been a while since I updated.... so here you go! Sorry for the lack of discipline, on my part.
As you can infer from the title, I was on youtube yesterday and typed in 'c'. Guess what came up as a suggestion?
Creative writing.
Being the curious verbivore I am, I naturally clicked that rather than proceding to whatever song I had in mind. And you know what? I found a treasure trove of both hilarious and horrifying things.
Stephanie Meyer.
Some random old guy from eHow.
And Stephan King.
I've never read any of the King, but I do know that he's a master. I'm simply not really interested in horror- sorry! Anywho, the most unexpected part of the video was that the King was wearing a hippie, tie-dyed happy-go-lucky t-shirt. Only the King could get away with that at a conference at Yale.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqp7A0B7abc
Watch the video and be inspired. I think I'll find some bad ones (of other writers) and post them so we can have a few laughs. :)
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Friday, February 11, 2011
Movies vs. Books
My class had a three minute debate today over books made into movies- good or bad? I had one friend say that "All adaptations of books into movies are bad!" and a chorus of us replied "Lord of the Rings!" Granted, some movies butcher their mother book, but others equal- or dare I say- improve their story.
Peter Jackson did a fantastic job directing the Lord of the Rings movies. Everyone must agree to that. MUST. :) Even now, I'm listening to Pippin's Song. His work is addicting.
Yes, they had to cut back. The first half of the Fellowship? The last part of Return of the King? Yes, they could have included those parts (I love you Tom Bombadil! Fear! Fire! Foes! Awake, awake!) but granted the original epicness of the books, they did a marvelous job recreating Tolkien's world.
I could go on FOREVER ranting and raving over LOTR, but, alas, most people would bore of my mentioning that Sauron did not create the three elven rings and how blah diddy blah diddy blah. I'm sorry. But hey! Frodo changed through the books! He started out a semi-cheerful hobbit, "Still in love with the Shire" as Bilbo put it, to a rather reserved, solemn man.
The movie for Eragon, however, is a different matter entirely. The book is decent- rather sterotypical- but the movie postively SLAUGHTERED Paolini's work, so badly they can't even try to make the rest of the books into movies. It would be impossible.
They ruined EVERYTHING.
I should probably stop now, before I get all worked up.
The Chronicles of Narnia movies are a rather debated field. The first was AMAZING- doesn't everyone agree with that? They followed the book so well! The acting was great! The set and costumes beyond my expectations!
The second movie fell short of its lofty expectations. The added battle, for example, and the Peter/ Caspian plotline were not welcomed by Narnia fans. (I still don't like the whole Caspian/Susan thing. He gets married!)
I would write much, much more, but this is enough for now. I have to go watch Lost. :)
Oh, and I sincerely hope I have not broken any copyright laws.
Do any of you have an opinion on the subject of books being turned into movies?
Yes, they had to cut back. The first half of the Fellowship? The last part of Return of the King? Yes, they could have included those parts (I love you Tom Bombadil! Fear! Fire! Foes! Awake, awake!) but granted the original epicness of the books, they did a marvelous job recreating Tolkien's world.
I could go on FOREVER ranting and raving over LOTR, but, alas, most people would bore of my mentioning that Sauron did not create the three elven rings and how blah diddy blah diddy blah. I'm sorry. But hey! Frodo changed through the books! He started out a semi-cheerful hobbit, "Still in love with the Shire" as Bilbo put it, to a rather reserved, solemn man.
They ruined EVERYTHING.
I should probably stop now, before I get all worked up.
The second movie fell short of its lofty expectations. The added battle, for example, and the Peter/ Caspian plotline were not welcomed by Narnia fans. (I still don't like the whole Caspian/Susan thing. He gets married!)
I would write much, much more, but this is enough for now. I have to go watch Lost. :)
Oh, and I sincerely hope I have not broken any copyright laws.
Do any of you have an opinion on the subject of books being turned into movies?
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
People are Such Strange Creatures...
I get a lot of inspiration from people. Let's be honest here- we, as a rational race, are very interesting. Some of us are pessimistic, others optimists. Some are funny, others serious, or introverted/extroverted, or wild/tame, or brave/cowards, and the list goes on and on. And that's not including mood swings. That puts the picture in a whole new light.
We all have different tastes and different reactions to the world around us. Different strengths, appearances, past, opinions...
But why is it so hard to put all that in a story? Why are deep characters so few and far between?
So many answers exist. Writers don't put in the effort. Some blame it on talent, or ignorance, or a lack of creativity. All of these are valid, to be sure. Everyone can come up with another answer.
I blame the human nature- so utterly complicated and like a labyrinth, how can anyone put such depth on a page? In a novel? In a series?
But yet those gems- those characters who have seared their image in our mind- still exist. They are out there! So why can't the rest of us show the same depth? And, most importantly, how the heck do the masters do it?
I don't know.
I know a little about characterization, and one fact startled me the most.
Characters should change.
It's so simple, yet so profound. People change, right? Our experiences morph our character. If we want to make our characters real, they should change. They should be like real, live people.
Sterotypes are the bane of the reader- and the writer. Everyone knows that. Who wants to read a story about, say, a vain supermodel? Or a pius nun? What about a suicidal billionaire? Or a murderous doctor?
People want to read about interesting people. Period, the end.
One of my absolute favorite characters EVER is Murtagh from the Inheritance Cycle. Most people think I'm crazy for it, too. Why? He's only a vengeful, angry, seen-as-evil dragon Rider who seems to enjoy tormenting others. I don't want to give anything away, but he nicknamed his best friend Thorn and his sword is named Misery. How cheerful, right?
But he's beautifully crafted. His backstory is a horror story, and that's not even talking about his own life, which is a bloody nightmare. He's been though SO MUCH, and let me tell you, I love him for it. Why? I may be reading too much into his character, but I have this gut instinct that he hates himself too. He hates what he's done. He hates his life, but he is physically incapable of suicide. And he's too proud to do that anyway. He's not the main character (by far in a way), but all the same, he is so much deeper than Eragon (the protagonist).
Who else?
Peter Pevensie! Though this is more evident in the movies rather than the books, his experiences in England and those in Narnia changed who he was. He went from being a rather frightened, doubtful boy to a proud, over-confident King of Narnia. The change was so obvious and well played that many argued against it, but I think it strengthed not only his character, but the movies.
You get the picture! Your characters should change. Period, the end.
Who are your favorite characters? Why?
We all have different tastes and different reactions to the world around us. Different strengths, appearances, past, opinions...
But why is it so hard to put all that in a story? Why are deep characters so few and far between?
So many answers exist. Writers don't put in the effort. Some blame it on talent, or ignorance, or a lack of creativity. All of these are valid, to be sure. Everyone can come up with another answer.
I blame the human nature- so utterly complicated and like a labyrinth, how can anyone put such depth on a page? In a novel? In a series?
But yet those gems- those characters who have seared their image in our mind- still exist. They are out there! So why can't the rest of us show the same depth? And, most importantly, how the heck do the masters do it?
I don't know.
I know a little about characterization, and one fact startled me the most.
Characters should change.
It's so simple, yet so profound. People change, right? Our experiences morph our character. If we want to make our characters real, they should change. They should be like real, live people.
Sterotypes are the bane of the reader- and the writer. Everyone knows that. Who wants to read a story about, say, a vain supermodel? Or a pius nun? What about a suicidal billionaire? Or a murderous doctor?
People want to read about interesting people. Period, the end.
But he's beautifully crafted. His backstory is a horror story, and that's not even talking about his own life, which is a bloody nightmare. He's been though SO MUCH, and let me tell you, I love him for it. Why? I may be reading too much into his character, but I have this gut instinct that he hates himself too. He hates what he's done. He hates his life, but he is physically incapable of suicide. And he's too proud to do that anyway. He's not the main character (by far in a way), but all the same, he is so much deeper than Eragon (the protagonist).
Who else?
You get the picture! Your characters should change. Period, the end.
Who are your favorite characters? Why?
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Backstory- It's Like... Snow
Hello everyone!
I'll try to keep this post brief, partially because I've realized how many words I tend to have per post and because I'm tight on time.
So here goes.
Backstory is your main character's past- their parents, history, etc. It's like snow because it doesn't take much to become a problem. Your readers want to know what's going on now, rather than what happened before. But remember that action needs to stem from something- that's why backstory is typically kept in the beginning of a novel.
There. That's all.
Just kidding! I could go into so much detail, but I shall restrain myself.
Backstory explains why your character does what he/she does. Why they react to certain situations different ways. That's another reason why it's kept in the beginning- if your beginning has action (like it should) that action has to stem from some conflict.
But don't tell the readers everything in one massive heap. For one, its not totally necessary to know how Jimmy was bullied in Kindergarden, and two, it's kind of boring. Let's be real here. When you're reading a story, you skip the boring parts. Backstory = skipping. Unless, for example, Jimmy is holding a sniper rifle to the head of a Mafia Lord, and that Mafia Lord just happens to be one of the bullies from Jimmy's Kindergarden class.
Only include the things that are absolutely necessary. As in, plug it in when the reader needs to know it and put in as little as possible.
Fang, from the Maximum Ride series (the last comes out the 14th- I'm so excited!), is one of my favorite characters ever. And all you need to know about him, concerning his backstory, is that he was altered by scientists who then performed tests on him and made him part avian. He escaped, and trusts no one. It explains why he beats up anyone who dares touch him or any of his five friends. And why he doesn't talk. Sort of. Backstory doesn't have to explain the details of a character's character. If that made any sense at all... hmm.
Rick Riordan, author of the Percy Jackson and the Olympians series, tells authors to never have dialogue explain backstory, because that creates a third 'character' in the scene- the reader- and that takes away from the creativeness of the story.
So, in short, here's the guidelines for backstory:
1) Every character needs it.
2) Don't give it in one big glop. Spread it out through the story.
3) Only tell what is absolutely necessary for the reader to know.
4) Make backstory matter.
There you go!
And aren't you proud of me? I figured out how to add an image to a post!
Oh- I almost forgot- what do you all want me to blog about? Any topic in particular? Tell me!
I'll try to keep this post brief, partially because I've realized how many words I tend to have per post and because I'm tight on time.
So here goes.
Backstory is your main character's past- their parents, history, etc. It's like snow because it doesn't take much to become a problem. Your readers want to know what's going on now, rather than what happened before. But remember that action needs to stem from something- that's why backstory is typically kept in the beginning of a novel.
There. That's all.
Just kidding! I could go into so much detail, but I shall restrain myself.
Backstory explains why your character does what he/she does. Why they react to certain situations different ways. That's another reason why it's kept in the beginning- if your beginning has action (like it should) that action has to stem from some conflict.
But don't tell the readers everything in one massive heap. For one, its not totally necessary to know how Jimmy was bullied in Kindergarden, and two, it's kind of boring. Let's be real here. When you're reading a story, you skip the boring parts. Backstory = skipping. Unless, for example, Jimmy is holding a sniper rifle to the head of a Mafia Lord, and that Mafia Lord just happens to be one of the bullies from Jimmy's Kindergarden class.
Only include the things that are absolutely necessary. As in, plug it in when the reader needs to know it and put in as little as possible.
Rick Riordan, author of the Percy Jackson and the Olympians series, tells authors to never have dialogue explain backstory, because that creates a third 'character' in the scene- the reader- and that takes away from the creativeness of the story.
So, in short, here's the guidelines for backstory:
1) Every character needs it.
2) Don't give it in one big glop. Spread it out through the story.
3) Only tell what is absolutely necessary for the reader to know.
4) Make backstory matter.
There you go!
And aren't you proud of me? I figured out how to add an image to a post!
Oh- I almost forgot- what do you all want me to blog about? Any topic in particular? Tell me!
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Flash! Fiction
1) I love snow days! And this is the second in a week. :)
2) I finally figured out how to post a profile picture on Blogger. To say the least I am not a techie person, so I am very proud of myself. :)
3) Frankly, I was astounded by the comments on The Act. I assumed I knew who read this blog... and I was very wrong. Thank you all so much for the encouragement! I'll post more later. Promise.
4) With all this free time on my hands, I read a brief article on flash fiction. And so now I am departing my abundant wisdom upon you. (Please note the sarcasm.)
Flash fiction is REALLY SHORT, like short stories. However, there is no real boundary between flash and just regular fiction. Novelettes, which are under 60,000 words (most of the time) (The Secret Second Life of Bree Tanner, for example) do not count. I think. Some said that flash is under 3000 words, but that would exclude the short stories I wrote that were published. So the division is very fuzzy.
I don't particularly enjoy writing short stories because I like character-driven plots, and most S.S.s are too short for any real character development. But I've also learned that they are very, very good practice for editing- I remember reviewing my first short story (The Prisoners) and having to cut about 700 words. It was hard, but what doesn't kill you only makes you stronger, right?
(Flash fiction, I think, is some of the hardest fiction to write because of the pressing word count.)
Then there is the SUPER short stories. Under 1000 words. Maybe under 500.
And then there are the stories that are so short, you are left hanging, to answer the words that have triggered a thousand questions in your head. My favorite example?
For sale: Baby shoes, never worn.
6-six-VI words. But don't you automatically find yourself creating a story about those shoes, and what happened to the parents, the baby? Word count doesn't define impact.
Read the short story "Teenage Wasteland"- http://faculty.weber.edu/jyoung/Electronic%20Reserve%203400/Teenage%20Wasteland.pdf - it was the first short story I remember reading, and it is incredible.
So write a story, under 300 words. Post it in the comments, if you feel so inclined. I'm going to write one, maybe include it in my next post.
Until next time!
2) I finally figured out how to post a profile picture on Blogger. To say the least I am not a techie person, so I am very proud of myself. :)
3) Frankly, I was astounded by the comments on The Act. I assumed I knew who read this blog... and I was very wrong. Thank you all so much for the encouragement! I'll post more later. Promise.
4) With all this free time on my hands, I read a brief article on flash fiction. And so now I am departing my abundant wisdom upon you. (Please note the sarcasm.)
Flash fiction is REALLY SHORT, like short stories. However, there is no real boundary between flash and just regular fiction. Novelettes, which are under 60,000 words (most of the time) (The Secret Second Life of Bree Tanner, for example) do not count. I think. Some said that flash is under 3000 words, but that would exclude the short stories I wrote that were published. So the division is very fuzzy.
I don't particularly enjoy writing short stories because I like character-driven plots, and most S.S.s are too short for any real character development. But I've also learned that they are very, very good practice for editing- I remember reviewing my first short story (The Prisoners) and having to cut about 700 words. It was hard, but what doesn't kill you only makes you stronger, right?
(Flash fiction, I think, is some of the hardest fiction to write because of the pressing word count.)
Then there is the SUPER short stories. Under 1000 words. Maybe under 500.
And then there are the stories that are so short, you are left hanging, to answer the words that have triggered a thousand questions in your head. My favorite example?
For sale: Baby shoes, never worn.
6-six-VI words. But don't you automatically find yourself creating a story about those shoes, and what happened to the parents, the baby? Word count doesn't define impact.
Read the short story "Teenage Wasteland"- http://faculty.weber.edu/jyoung/Electronic%20Reserve%203400/Teenage%20Wasteland.pdf - it was the first short story I remember reading, and it is incredible.
So write a story, under 300 words. Post it in the comments, if you feel so inclined. I'm going to write one, maybe include it in my next post.
Until next time!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)