writersplace

Written by writ-write-wrote

A story without characters isn’t a story. There has to be at least one character, be it a person, animal, plant, alien, or mountain.

With that said, however, your characters can’t just randomly poof into the story (… unless they really do poof), or be treated as if they’ve been there since before the beginning.

• Poof! Here’s my 10-page biography

“Let’s go get some cake,” Mark said.

Jenny also wanted to tag along. Jenny was a really nice girl, with really long chocolate brown hair and the smoothest skin I’ve ever seen. Her parents were divorced, but she was still a really happy kid. She’s shorter than me, but last year she was taller. Jenny’s also terrified of moths and grasshoppers because of an incident when she was little. When she was five…

We had never met Jenny, but that paragraph is too much for a first meeting. Going to get cake with someone new doesn’t mean you should proceed to give their life story. When you first introduce a character, I would suggest giving their name, their relation to the main character/narrator, and a few thoughts and opinions about them. We don’t have to learn about Jenny all at once, but by the time the story’s finished (and as long as she’s not a purposely-mysterious character or someone who was met within the last fifty pages) Jenny should be a close acquaintance to us.

• You’ve known me since birth

So after that example you’re understanding what I meant here, right? I think I explained it pretty well, and we’re on the same page, so let’s continue with our story.

Yes, the ‘You’ve known me since birth’ character is what I’d say to be the complete opposite of the ‘Poof! Here’s my 10-page biography’ character. If this one is the narrator’s best friend, you’ll be lucky to know their name. It’s very likely that you won’t know they’re the narrator’s best friend. It’s a confusing character because the readers are the only ones who don’t know. Every other character knows this guy (let’s call him Adam) Adam, so no one feels any inclination to shed some light on him, and it takes a very long time to learn whether or not he’s the school janitor or the president of the drama club (or both?).

~

There are some DO NOT’s of introducing a character. When I’m a better blogger (aka less lazy; I’m really sorry.), I’ll get onto the DO’s.

Stick around?

Written by FYCD

We’ve gotten quite a few Asks regarding making a villain or antagonist a likable, sympathetic, or relatable character. So we’re making you a master post. Enjoy.

Sympathetic Characters:

What makes readers feel sympathetic towards a character?
The best, most genuine way to write a character that people will sympathize with is to take the time and create a round, realistic character with motivations and feelings that are understandable to the audience. Because humans are naturally inclined to feel empathy for each other, they will sympathize with almost anyone who they can see themselves in. If at any point the reader is thinking something like ‘I could see myself feeling or acting this way’, you’ve got them. There is a difference between disagreeing with a characters’ actions and judging them- you want your audience to only disagree (if at all).

Antagonist:

We’ve used ‘villain’ in the title, but it’s probably better to use the term ‘antagonist.’

Antagonist:
noun
1. a person who is opposed to, struggles against, or competes with another; opponent; adversary.
2. the adversary of the hero or protagonist of a drama orother literary work: Iago is the antagonist of Othello.
(Dictionary.com)

Actually, an antagonist doesn’t have to be a person, depending on what kind of conflict you are writing. You can have a story without an antagonist, or a story that lacks an overarching antagonist as well. However, for the purposes of this post, when we say ‘antagonist’, we mean any person who engages in a major conflict with the protagonist of the story.

(Put it together for) Sympathetic Antagonists:

What makes readers feel sympathetic towards the antagonist of a story?

Real people are often hard to pin down as ‘evil’ or ‘good’, rather, they do good or evil things. Though your antagonist might do things that the audience does not agree with, if the reader can understand your character’s motivations, they will have a harder time condemning them altogether. When I say ‘sympathetic’, I don’t mean that the reader has to agree with that character’s actions, or even like them- rather, the sense that the character is not so different from the reader is what makes an antagonist ‘sympathetic’. As C put it, “The reader can SEE that the villain has good qualities, but their actions work against the hero.”

A few methods:

Backstory: The scary thing about nature vs. nurture thinking is that we still don’t know how much of our actions are influenced by genes, and how much by our environment. Therefore, most people, when presented with an account of how someone was shaped into who they are today by circumstances beyond their control, most readers will think, ‘that could have been me’.

Logic: While characters that are mentally unhealthy are popular for a villain role these days, I love a villain who has an excellent reason for what s/he’s doing. Take the antagonists behind the scenes in Ender’s Game, Graff and Anderson. They emotionally destroyed many children (including the protagonist), allowed one to die on their watch, and committed xenocide by proxy. But it was their plan to save the world.

Motivation: People can do things when they are angry, or insecure, or fearful, that they wouldn’t under other conditions. For example, fear makes people irrational. Nearly everyone has experienced this. If you have ever frantically crushed a spider under a book (poor book), then you can sympathize, even just a bit, with someone hurting other people because they are afraid.

This has been FYCD

C is a bamf.

Further Reading:

'How To Write The Bad Guy'

'THE SYMPATHETIC VILLAIN'

'Creating an Interesting Bad Guy'

'50 greatest villains in literature'

'The Nine Most Sympathetic Villains'

'Top 10 Sympathetic Supervillains'

'Wikipedia: Sympathetic Villain'

'Creating Sympathetic Villains'

A few TV Tropes examples for inspiration:

Well-Intentioned Extremist

Visionary Villain

Hero Antagonist

Villain Protagonist

Ineffectual Sympathetic

Anti Villian

By Jan Allen

I hope you have been writing for at least 90 minutes each day of the break. And I hope that by now you have a crappy first draft. If not, we will start to hate you. “I know some very great writers… Not one of them writes elegant first drafts. All right, one of them does, but we do not like her very much. We do not think that she has a rich inner life or that God likes her or can even stand her. (Although when I mention this to my priest friend Tom, he said you can safely assume you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.)” (Lamott, 1994, pp. 21-22). (…)

Please note: Reading about writing does not count as your 90 minutes of writing. Organizing your desk does not count as writing. Reading, typing, and editing your notes do not count as writing. Not even composing mentally while you wash the dishes constitutes writing. Writing is fingers on keyboard or pen to paper and producing. Even producing crappy first drafts.

Recall that one of the obstacles to writing is the fear that what we write will be terrible. It’s a common fear… as common as writing crappy first drafts. Think of them as a necessity. “If you try to write and edit at the same time you will do neither well” (Sides, 1991). You have to write before you can revise and edit to get the draft you want.

Lamott has a chapter called “Shitty First Drafts” that describes the necessity of writing without perfection or editing: “Very few writers really know what they are doing until they’ve done it. For me and most of the other writers I know, writing is not rapturous. In fact, the only way I can get anything written at all is to write really, really shitty first drafts” (p. 22).

She describes her fear of doing even this: “Even after I’d been doing this for years, panic would set in. I’d try to write a lead, but instead I’d write a couple of dreadful sentences, xx them out, try again, xx everything out, and then feel despair and worry settle on my chest like an x-ray apron. It’s over, I’d think, calmly. I’m not going to be able to get the magic to work again this time. I’m ruined. I’m through. I’m toast. Maybe, I’d think, I can get my old job back as a clerk-typist. But probably not. I’d get up and study my teeth in the mirror for a while. Then I’d stop, remember to breathe, make a few phone calls, hit the kitchen and chow down.

Eventually I’d go back and sit down at my desk, and sigh for the next ten minutes. Finally I would pick up my one-inch picture frame, stare into it as if for the answer, and every time the answer would come: all I had to do was to write a really shitty first draft of, say, the opening paragraph. And no one was going to see it… The whole thing would be so long and incoherent and hideous that for the rest of the day I’d obsess about getting creamed by a car before I could write a decent second draft. I’d worry that people would read what I’d written and believe that the accident had really been a suicide, that I had panicked because my talent was waning and my mind was shot” (pp. 24-25).

That captures it pretty well, right? Especially for those of us who must work to manage perfectionistic tendencies, it helps to have as your goal today, “Write a really bad first draft.”

Many of us are better editors than writers. So we must first write without striving for perfection. “Just get it down on paper, because there may be something great in those six crazy pages that you would never have gotten to by more rational, grown-up means. There may be something in the very last line of the very last paragraph on page six that you love, that is so beautiful or wild that you now know what you’re supposed to be writing about, more or less, or in what direction you might go - but there is no way to get to this without first getting through the first five and a half pages” (Lamott, 1994, p. 23).

(source)

Be Confident
Be Ready
Be Reachable
Be Brave
Be Polite
Be Imperfect
Be Wary!

This particular question has come and gone over the years, and lately it’s been coming back. I think it’s partly because of a new (and popular) style of writing conflicting with the standard rules. I can’t count how many times I’ve heard it in the last few months: Should direct thoughts and/or internal monologue be italicized?

Short answer: Technically, yes. That’s the rule for distinguishing between prose and thoughts.

Long answer: Not necessarily. This is one rule that can easily and effectively be bent, but it all depends on your story (and, yes, I realize this is an oft repeated mantra of mine).

First, let’s take a look at a couple styles.

If you switch from third to first person to show your character's thoughts, then you need to use italics. If you switch from past tense to present tense to show your character’s thoughts, then you should use italics (though this can get a bit tricky). After all, the rule clearly states that thoughts should be italicized in these instances.

But what if we don’t switch? What if we stay in third person, or stay in past tense? That would mean we’re also staying in the narrative, right? But does that mean we can’t convey thoughts?

Not at all. It's certainly possible to convey thoughts and ideas as a part of the narrative, without italics, as long as you keep things consistent. That means two things. 1) The entire narrative turns into the character’s thoughts, and the whole story is written from his/her bias. 2) You can’t switch from third to first person, or from past to present tense (except, of course, when you can). If you do, it’ll make the prose inconsistent and will likely jar the reader.

To me, not using italics makes the narration seamless because I feel like I am the character. When thoughts are put in italics, there's a subtle reminder that we're going deeper into the main character's head—implying that we weren't there a second ago. If there are no italics, then I feel like I’ve been there all along. I find this style far more effective, even in third person.

As a result, the story’s voice tends to be stronger because the whole narration is the character's playground for thoughts and opinions and his/her personality has more opportunities to show through.

But what about direct thoughts vs. internal monologue? Shouldn’t direct thoughts be italicized no matter what? Again, technically, yes. But I don't actually see them as being that different. They're both thoughts, really, where one is put in italics and the other isn't. You can still effectively convey the necessary emotions and such by turning the internal monologue into something like direct thoughts. Hence, no italics necessary.

There are plenty of successful first and third person stories that don't italicize internal monologue. The 'thoughts' are simply a part of the narrative, and it matches the POV, tense, and voice. But the information is most definitely the character's opinions, or it at least has that character's bias and perspective.

That said, it all depends on the story, and what kind of style that story demands. The only way to figure out what you, the author, should do is to experiment and see what works best for your story.

Source

How many times have you heard the phrase “show, don’t tell?” Personally, I’ve lost count. Now, how many times have you heard it explained? I can count on one hand how often I’ve heard that. And the explanations I got never really clicked for me, so I went in search of my own answer. After much reading, researching, and deliberating, I discovered that it’s actually quite simple:

Showing is action-based. Telling is not.

Okay then, what is action? A easy way to answer that is to ask another question: what’s a verb? A verb is a word that expresses action. Therefore, showing is expressed when the verb is the focus. Let’s look at some examples.

A: James was a nerdy teacher's pet.
B: James was always the first to arrive for math. He settled into his front-row seat, arranging everything he'd need for class - math book in the upper right hand corner, notebook opened to a clean sheet and labeled with today's date, mechanical pencil in hand, and a spare pencil in the desk's pencil tray. Next, he pulled a two-pence coin from his pocket, then polished the surface with a corner of his t-shirt until it glinted in the afternoon sunlight. James grinned. Mrs. Sparks would be thrilled to add it to her collection.

The first is obviously telling. But what about the second? That first sentence is telling, yes, but what about the rest? James is doing something – settling in to his seat, arranging his materials, and polishing a coin meant as a gift for his teacher. These actions show us his personality, how he pays attention to detail, and how conscious he is of his teacher’s interests. To show James always arriving first for math could get tedious, even boring, so mixing this tiny bit of telling with showing can illustrate the goal of showing the reader how he’s a nerdy teacher’s pet.

Which brings me to my next point: how do you convert telling to showing? The key word here is “how.” How is James a nerdy teacher’s pet? What does he do that makes us think of him this way? He’s meticulous, he’s prepared, and he has a backup pencil. What kind of kid has a backup pencil? The kind that actually cares about taking notes. Let’s look at some more examples of telling.

#1: Tammy didn’t like Joey. He always did things like pull her hair or trip her on the school bus.
This is pretty straight forward. The reader is told about how Tammy feels about Joey, because of things that he’s done to her. The red flag here is “things that he’s done to her.” Show us these things, then we will see Tammy react. In both cases, Tammy and Joey will be doing something: Joey tormenting Tammy, and Tammy reacting with emotion. Bonus: these actions will also show us more about the character’s personalities. This rounds them out, elicits sympathy, and ends up making the whole story more interesting.

#2: The castle was dark and creepy.
This is a little harder, because it’s an inanimate object. The most common response writers have is to create an eerie and vivid description of the castle. That’s all fine and dandy, except...description is another form of telling. I’m not saying that description is a bad thing, but it’s not showing. I think many people get showing confused with vivid description.

To really turn this sentence into showing, you must find a way to weave in some action. And here’s an easy way to do this: use your characters. After all, who is perceiving this castle as dark and creepy? They are! Show us the castle through them, and you’ll find an easier way to introduce action. Especially since people can actually do things, while castles pretty much just sit there.

#3: Dinah baked a cake.
This is very tricky, because it’s telling in disguise. Why? Well, look at the sentence. Dinah is performing an action (baked). By my earlier definition, that should mean this is showing, right? Not exactly. The steps involved in baking a cake are too many to cram into one sentence. Plus, this is a golden opportunity to show us Dinah’s character. How does she bake the cake? Does she hum and dance around the kitchen? Does she slam the pans around and snap at anyone who gets to close? Does she bake elaborate cakes? Or are her culinary skills summed up by a burned stack of toast? There are so many opportunities for details here that will both make the scene more interesting, as well as round out her character.

“Showing” is an aspect of writing that infiltrates everything. It affects pacing, description, characterization, active vs. passive word choice, dialog...everything. But if you keep in mind that showing is simply action, then you can keep your characters doing something. It’ll keep your story moving forward, your reader involved, and it’ll be more fun to write. Harder, but more fun.

Source: Writer Musings: Tell Me How to Show

I started college a few weeks ago and, as you can imagine, I spend a lot of time in the library. Everyone asks why I read so many books, and truthfully, I do read a lot of books. I have around twenty unfinished library books sitting on my desk. I tell them I'm a writer and they nod. Then there's the question: you're an English major, right? And when I tell them I'm majoring in Architecture, they stare for a while and ask why I don't just major in English.

I'm guilty of that assumption too. If you want to be a writer, you have to major in English. Otherwise, how are you going to learn? You need a professor to guide your hand and mold your mind. Eh, I don't think it's necessary.

Sure, you need a mentor, but I don't think an English degree guarantees that you're going to become a brilliant writer. You need drive, focus, and talent. A degree won't give you any of those.

Honestly, I didn't want to be a writer until three years ago. I wanted to be an astronaut, a manga artist, even a professional skateboarder. Then I joined fanfiction.net. That's when I realized I liked writing. I wrote a few crappy fanfictions, got told I wrote crappy fanfictions, and retreated with a hurt ego to write more crappy fanfictions. No, I won't show them to you.

After a while, I quit writing fanfiction.net for a variety of reasons and moved on to writing crappy teenage emo poetry on deviantart. Then I moved to fictionpress and wrote even more crappy teenage emo poetry. I was fifteen. I didn't read much then. Sure, I read, but I didn't read YA. I thought I'd write screenplays. Only, I didn't know the proper formatting to write screenplays, so I gave up after I didn't get enough reviews on my work. Shallow, I know, but I lived for validation. I wanted praise. I was writing for attention.

For two years, I stopped posting my work online. I deleted my deviantart account, made a new one, and occasionally updated it. But I have a short attention span. I've always had trouble finishing things. I've finished two novels, which aren't really finished, and started more than fifty.

Then, after I saw a bunch of other teens getting agents, I realized that I wanted to become a teen writing sensation. I joined InkPop and participated for all of two days. It's not that I'm afraid of commitment, I just get bored easily.

I did the nanowrimo thing in 2009. I was under the impression that my book was hot. I'd get requests back and forth. No such luck. It was an idiotic move on my part to send that crap off to agents. I still hadn't read much YA. In fact, I hadn't even read Twilight. I thought I had the whole world figured out and everyone else needed to stand back and revel in my talent.

In the July of 2010, I discovered the beacon that's Nathan Bransford's blog. I had a shining epiphany. I would work my ass off, and he would be my dream agent. It didn't exactly work out the way I'd planned. But I finally started posting up my work, and getting feedback on my writing. I'd had my GoodReads account dormant since the March of 2010. I logged on in August and started to actually read. I read every single YA book I could get my hands on. And then I started reviewing them. Lo and behold, my writing started to improve. As I look back on my old stuff, I recoil in horror. Did I write that? Did I really think this was ready to get published?

And I continue to write. Every single day. There's no secret to becoming a better write. All you have to do is read and write. Sure, a mentor can point out your mistakes, but in the end, only you can do the work.

So, what's the point of this post? I guess I'm trying to say that you don't really need to major in English to become a writer. My dad has a degree in English. He never writes. I know so many people who've majored in English that don't write, or they don't write well.

In this guest post, Phoebe North discusses the benefits of having an MFA. When she wrote that, I was seriously considering minoring in English, even if I didn't want to major in it.

I'm sure it helps. It gets you focused. I need focus. But all I really needed was a psuedo-writing group; people who could tell me when I did good, when I did bad, and most importantly, to never give up. And read. Read a lot. That helps.

Now, I spend way too much time online, but I write constantly. And I improve at a steady rate. I have a lot of hobbies. Way too many. From soccer to web design to electric guitar. But I've never been able to devote 100% to them. Writing is the only thing that helps me focus.

I'm not saying I'm a pro. I'm not the ultimate expert on what you should do. I can only tell you what works for me. And this isn't to say that you shouldn't go to college. Go to college. And if you like English, major in it. But if you want to be a writer, you don't need to major in it.

A few tips if you're just starting out (these aren't rules, just guidelines):

1. Delete that, very, suddenly, and just from your vocabulary.
2. Stick with said in your dialog tags.
3. Read.
4. Don't use gerunds.
5. Don't use excessive amounts of adverbs.
6. And most importantly, show your work to people who'll give you a critical eye. That means anyone but your mom. I'm sure she's nice, but she'll sugarcoat her critique. You don't want that.

Finally, don't be afraid to ask for feedback. If it's harsh, so what? It can only make you a better writer.

Written by The Book Lantern

This post mostly about living in Asia. Mostly China, Japan, South Korea, or the countries surrounding China. If you are curious about these countries' culture, to incorporate into your stories. Here is a collected list of blogs, yep blogs. I would look for a regular website however it is more relatable to read it through a American, New Zealander, or Canadian going to another country with different culture than their own country's culture. I put some LJ communities that has their pop cultures with some insights about those cultures. And there is some websites that has multiple users. If you like these people, please post your blog/website! Or if you know any, please post them below in the comment section.


China and countries around China:
Hong Kong Girl Talk (blog)
LoveLoveChina Blog
LoveLoveChina website
Aiya They Didn't
Speaking of China (blog)
NakupoTheyDidn't

South Korea:
Dana in SoKo (blog)
The Grand Narrative
Seoul Beats
The Three Wise Monkeys (blog)
Hello Kpop
Omona They Didn't
MsLeetobe (blog)

Japan:
Daily Onigirl
Totemosugoi (blog)
Geisha Interrupted (blog)
Japanalyst
Arama They Didn't
Toyko Hive