Ten Dollars Will Buy You A Really Cool Word That’ll Change The Way You Write

Filed in: blog

Warning: Strap yourself down.  This is a long blog.  My bad.

I’m totally up for another round of blogging that isn’t really blogging, but more like a writing lesson … again.  I guess the question is, are you?

So, whada we talk about?  Oh yeah.  I gotta come up with that.  Let me think … got it.

Verisimilitude.  (ver-ə-sə-ˈmi-lə-̩tüd)

Don’t you just love ten dollar words?  This one pertains to writing.  Well, okay, it can pertain to a few other things (such as art and acting), but we’re writers so work with me here.

Let’s cut this big, lip-tripping word down into easy-to-digest pieces.  This six syllable word basically means semblance of reality.  So what’s the big deal about achieving verisimilitude? you may ask.  (gasp)  I can’t believe you just asked that.

It is a huge deal!  (No joke.)  Real life is a pooh-fest of boring nothing most of the time.  If we, as writers, wrote things as they really are, our readers would drop into a coma of “who cares” quicker than a fly finds a carcass.  (Gross imagery, but you get what I mean.)  Yet, verisimilitude is a process of creating a reality that will make the reader believe whatever is happening in the story might, could actually, really happen.

Sounds sort of like sleight of hand, you say?  It is.  We need to bring reality to the page without over-burdening the reader.  What does that mean?  Pick your details carefully.  Don’t overdo them.  Make your dialogue sound believable.  Pay attention to action-reaction.  Motivate, motivate, motivate.

My biggest pet peeve deals with action/reaction.  It’s when authors have a character get beat up and then the guy goes for a mile run with no problem after that.  Really?  Seriously?  I’ll slack the book against the wall when that happens.  If you insist on your character having physical limitations, do it right.

Example time.  (yay! for examples)

I love movies.  They are a visual medium that instantly shows a lesson, and they’re perfect to showcase verisimilitude.  Have you seen the latest Die Hard movie Live Free or Die Hard?

Live Free or Die Hard

Here’s a quick summary.  John McClane nearly gets blown up.  He gets into multiple car crashes.  Brings down a helicopter after he throws himself from a speeding car.  Fights a ninja chick and wins.  Survives being shot via a fighter jet (my least favorite and believable part of the whole movie, but no movie is perfect).  And shoots himself through the shoulder to kill the bad guy standing behind him.  And that’s not even half of what happens to the poor man.

Pretty wild, huh?  So how’d they make me believe all that is possible?

Basically, John McClane gets his butt kicked, and it shows.  His character is a rough and tough inner-city cop.  The old “gets a lickin’ and still keeps tickin’” kind of guy.  The movie works because when he escapes all these crazy stunts, he looks like he just escaped a harrowing stunt.  He’s beat up.  He limps.  He winces.  He’s still walking and even he looks surprised that he’s able to function.  He’s rolling on adrenalin, which at first is based on duty and self preservation, and then it morphs into something even stronger, his love for his daughter.  They nailed this man’s motivation.  In the end, I believe nothing is going to stop him until a bullet finds his brain and even then I’m not sure that’ll do it.

So, to make your characters believable, you’ve got to show the “ouch” factor, and realize that John McClane’s stunts work in Live Free or Die Hard because he doesn’t stop to rest.  Not once.  The director knows, and we know, if John McClane allows himself to rest, he won’t get back up.  That’s a basic physics principle.  A body in motion is hard to slow down, but once it does, it’s difficult to get it back into motion.  So the character pushes through the pain.  He lets his adrenalin work for him.

Let’s take another look at the verisimilitude angle.  The old, “But that would never happen in real life!” outcry.  Look at the T.V. CSI franchise.

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation

Gil Grissom (my favorite) has us all believe he can and will find the one clue that will seal his case.  And he’ll do it in less than 24 hours.  Yay for Grissom! 

Reality check. In the real world, finding and evaluating clues, not to mention DNA, is a long, long process.   But we’re dealing in fiction, ya’ll.  We’re all big kids.  We know fiction isn’t real.  If it were, it’d be catalogued under nonfiction.  The reality of being a fiction writer is that we can’t construct our stories to reflect the real world.  We’d lose readers right and left because most of the real stuff is boring.  We have to condense time, manipulate procedures, have people say things they would only think, until we’ve got a tensely filled plot that moves forward at the perfect pace that hopefully feels as if it could really happen. 

Let’s take this aspect down to the most boring activity I can imagine.  An average business meeting.

Ugh!  I know.  We’ve all either been to or have heard about business meetings.  Bunch of people sit around a table and hash out details.  They go over the same material until everyone wants to slit their wrists or commit murder.  Not much fun usually.  I think it’s safe to say the bulk of business meetings are filler information, things most everyone knows, but you’ve got to go over every little detail to make sure everyone’s up to speed.

So, as writers, we’ve got to take what happens in an hour business meeting and condense it into the most interesting parts.  We’ve got to manipulate the information so that the reader is entertained by the event and intrigued to know what comes next.

Let’s create a scene 

Since this is the holiday season, we’ll make our business a toy manufacturer.  Our main character will be Jack. 

 

So cute in his pink tie.  He’s young and hungry to progress up the business ladder.  He’s got vision and the brains to see it carried out.  Yet, he’s working for a man who wants results, but who’s not especially concerned with details.

OUR SCENE

Sweat prickled down Jack Finley’s temples.  Second week on the job and he drew the short straw.  Nobody liked bad news.  Especially his boss.  In fact, Jack would rather be target practice for a knife thrower than approach his boss.  He sighed.  Jerked his tie straight.  No avoiding the inevitable.

After a cursory knock, Jack entered his boss’s lair.  “Good afternoon, sir.”

“Finley,” his boss said without looking up from his paperwork.  “Have a seat.  Are the numbers in?”

No “How’s it going, son,” or “Are you enjoying your work?” platitudes.  The old man was all business.  At least he remembered Jack’s name.

“Yes, sir.”  Claiming the chair in front of the desk, Jack held out his report.  “The projected success of Tiny Tina –”

“Damn it!”  Jack’s boss flipped through a few papers, not paying Jack any attention.  Was it Jack’s youth?  Inexperience?  Both?

Undaunted, he cleared his throat and tried again.  “The projected success of Tiny Tina has not been realized in sales.”

His boss’s gaze snapped to Jack.  The full brunt of those heavy brows lowered over eyes brimming with displeasure.  This was why no one wanted to deliver the news.  The old man’s stare could make a guy sweat blood.

Jack eased the graph in front of his boss and pointed to a sudden plunge in sales projections.  “S-sales are down fifteen percent.  We’ve scaled back production, though there may be other factors that are temporarily adding to this slow down.  In regards to that, we’re gathering more information, which should be available on the sixteenth.  I’m not hopeful.  There’s a high probability future sales will continue to fall.”

“Why is that?”

Here we go.  Jack took a deep breath and plunged ahead.  “The American Pediatrics Association has deemed Tiny Tina to encourage enuresis.”

“In your …what?”

“Enuresis.  Bed-wetting, sir.  The American Pediatrics Association has further sent out a news bulletin to warn parents of this … irregularity.”

An alarming shade of red snaked its way into his boss’s cheeks.  “Are you telling me those little pissants at APA are pissing on my doll?”

“Um … yes, sir.  I mean , our research didn’t encompass the possibility of bed-wetting, but it appears the American Pediatrics Association may have a point.”

A meaty fist slammed against the table.  “It’s a doll, for crying out loud!  Not a conspiracy to encourage a generation of bed wetters.  My granddaughter loves that doll.”

“Does she …”  Jack let his curiosity go.  No use in tweaking the bull’s ear if a guy wanted to get out alive and keep his job … and he needed this job.  School loans, rent and a desire to create a solid platform for his own ideas had him desperate.  One false move and his whole life would unravel.

The older man’s jaw flexed as he gnashed his teeth.  A finger suddenly stabbed at Jack’s personal bubble, coming awfully close to his chest.  “Fix this, Finley.  Go over their accusations.  Nail an apology.  Demand a retraction.  Today.”

END SCENE

Okay, so how did we use verisimilitude? 

First, we got rid of the group meeting.  I’d keep the group dynamic only if it’s absolutely necessary to our plot.  Since it isn’t, out it went because juggling a bunch of people can create confusion for the reader.  From there, we laid the ground work that Jack is nervous about handing in his report.  Why?  Jack’s young and brand new to the company, yet he already knows when things don’t go according to plan, his boss gets angry.  Jack’s nerves show in his speech pattern.  He hedges slightly, yet his youthful confidence gains strength as their meeting progresses.  He actually tells his boss what he doesn’t want to hear, but needs to know.  He uses correct terms while his boss is earthier.  Jack needs this job; he’s motivated and has been given a directive in how to keep his job. 

This exercise in verisimilitude works because we carefully picked our details to highlight character, we used believable dialogue, and motivated the characters.  Whether or not it’s interesting and begs the reader to read further is subjective.  As writers we have no control over our reader’s response.  All we can do is study our craft and write the best story we can. 

Well, I’ve done it again.  Sorry for the ridiculously long post.  The concept isn’t an easy one to explain.  Verisimilitude is found in every aspect of creating story, from conception to execution.  It’s tightly woven throughout the whole process.  To try and pull it out and shine a light on it is difficult at best.  The best way to see it done is to go through your favorite book and pick apart the first chapter and see how the author made you believe what’s going on is real.  But then, if it’s done well, you might not be able to put your finger on it. 

Oh gosh!  I’ve got to shut up now!  Sorry.

If you made it this far, I suspect you’ve had a really boring day and you’ll read anything to stimulate brain activity.  Hopefully, this wasn’t a waste of time, and I was able to get you that much closer to understanding a ten dollar word that is really important to our writing success.

So tell me, am I full of it or is verisimilitude as important as I think it is?  What are your pet peeves that’ll have you slacking a book against the wall?

Comments

Diana Layne says:

Hi, Shea,

really well thought out post. I’m only gonna comment briefly cuz I got an agent request–yippee–and I’m doing one of those “read out loud” things Kim mentioned. Speed reading, ok, but still…and I’m just having to deal with the embarrassment of people listening. :)

Anyway, one of the things that irritates me, as I write RS and love reading suspense, is if I don’t think the danger is real enough, if there isn’t enough on the line for the characters. Sometimes it’s b/c I don’t know/care enough about the characters and so the danger means nothing to me, and at other times, it’s that the author isn’t willing to torture the characters enough. Torture them already! Ok, so I’m a closet sadist, I’ll fess up. But only in fiction, in real life I’m very nice…mild mannered even, ha. :)

Shea Berkley says:

Yay for the agent request! Good luck reading.

I hear ya on the danger aspect. If there isn’t enough at stake or someone they love or their own lives aren’t at stake, where’s the suspense?

Katrina C says:

Good luck with the agent request, Diana!

I like reality. I just come right out and say it…the DNA needs to be sent off to the lab. Sorry. Won’t be back for weeks, maybe months. Don’t count on using it to solve your case any time soon. Use your head.

I have an annoying knack for guessing who-done-it and why. Luckily my husband doesn’t mind that I tell him the end of a show at the mid point of said show. The only ones I can’t solve are the CSI shows because they pull out a Gizmospectometer to measure the acidic value of someone’s sweat of they swab a speck of fiber from the victim’s cornea that links him to the killer. They may as well pull the name of the killer randomly from their butt.

Does any of this have anything to do with your really big word? I’m not sure. I love it when a writer can make the mundane interesting. John Grisham for instance. How does he make the law interesting? I’m in awe. I even read Playing For Pizza, which was about football of all things, and I loved it, because he loved football and Italy and it showed.

Have a great day everyone. I’ll check back later.

Diana Layne says:

Oh, Kelly, I have a friend like you who can always guess who done it. Irritates me that she can figure it out and I can’t, lol.

Shea Berkley says:

…They may as well pull the name of the killer randomly from their butt…

(giggle, snort) Yep, that is so annoying, isn’t it? What I’ve come to learn is that everyone has their “threshold” that determines their ablity to suspend disbelief. What works for one person won’t work for another. All we can do is do our best and hope the story and our writing is so amazing, people will forgive our manipulations.

I’m glad to hear you say that, because I’m notorious for making stuff up. If it sounds rational to me, I figure others will believe it.

Tamara Hogan says:

I’m with you, Kelly – I find the lack of realism in how TV and movies represent labwork and computer systems highly annoying. If you are even slightly knowledgeable about how these processes are implemented in real life, there are solutions to crimes, mysteries, etc. that you may simply not consider because the solution is JUST NOT POSSIBLE IN THE CONSTRUCT THAT WE CALL REALITY. I find this very annoying. It’s, as Kelly said more politely than me, like the writers pulled a solution out of their collective asses.

To the point of Shea’s excellent post, I agree 100% that writers need to compress time, to select which details serve our story and drive the narrative along in a speedy fashion. But we need to choose very carefully. I don’t need a nauseating level of technological detail – actually on this point less is more; nothing dates a book faster than very specific technical details – but is it too much to ask that the details which ARE supplied not be …wrong?

Elisa Beatty says:

I don’t watch CSI (no time for TV), but that “pull it out of their butts” element would drive me nuts. I can’t quite remember who it was–Agatha Christie, maybe–who had some cardinal rules for mysteries, and one of them was that smart readers must at least have a CHANCE of figuring out whodunnit. The evidence had to be layered in (cleverly) somewhere along the line, so at least on a second reading you’d see it was all really there, waiting to be found. If it’s not there, a good reader feels cheated.

That’s why CSI began to bore me. If I can’t play along, what’s the fun?

Katrina C says:

I totally agree that it’s no fun when you can’t play along, and when shows like CSI are more like science fiction than science.

A couple of my good friends are forensic scientists, and I’ve seen them struggle not to roll their eyes every time someone says, “Ooh, is it just like CSI?” One of them finally said, “I spent all day yesterday taping together pieces of a plastic bag. So no.”

Shea Berkley says:

Yet, the CSI franchise is one of the most successful ones on T.V.

I know for some of you, this is a hard sell, but remember, we’re not dealing with only professionals who know the intimate aspects of those procedures. (The terms are fairly accurate, it’s just how they act on those procedures that’s been messed with.) Professionals will know it’s not reality. The shows are not a crash course in how to be a CSI. We like the shows because we like the characters, not because they stick to the facts and only the facts.

Here’s the thing, we’re telling our stories for the masses. We’re dealing in story (plot, character, emotion) and using the semblance of reality to do it. IF you can get most of the people to bite on your premise, you’ve made a huge leap.

By the way, my other favorite shows are Burn Notice and Bones, two shows that constantly fiddle with reality, but dang it if they aren’t fun laced with childish giggles (coming from me, not the characters).

I’m the ultimate doubting Thomas and, therefore, the queen of verisimilitude. The reason I have problems with a lot of paranormal stories is my total disbelief. I hate it when a story seems completely outside the realm of possibility, but every once in a while I find an author who is so adept at world building and weaving details I’m able to enjoy the fantasy.

Shea Berkley says:

World building is totally key to paranormal/sci-fi/fantasy. For believability, authors really need to take the time to build their world to the degree it needs. And keeping things consistent is so important to the genre. If he can fly on page one, he should try to fly if he gets in trouble on page 100.

Yes, yes, yes. I have a problem with fairies (I’m not sure if I’m even spelling it right), fairy god mothers, mythical creatures…I’ve never even read a vampire story. What’s wrong with me?

Shea Berkley says:

(grin) Nothing’s wrong with you Kelly. Isn’t it great there are stories out there for everyone?

I love faeries and ghosts and griffins and all those crazy creatures just as much as I like the ones based in reality. It all depends on my mood.

For utterly believable high fantasy, please try George R.R. Martin. When I read his stuff, I have trouble remembering that it’s fiction, even where there’s dragons and whatnot. He’s THAT good.

Robert says:

If you’re reading ‘fantasy’ of any kind (including paranormal and urban fantasy) and you are upset at happenings that are outside of the realm of possibility, then you’re in the wrong genre. I can understand wanting to read only stories that are actually possible in terms of the events that take place in the story, but if that’s the way you feel about stories then it seems to me to be a mistake to read ‘paranormal’ in the first place. The title of the genre itself should be enough to alert you to the fact that it is quite likely not everything in the story will be within the ‘realm of possibility.’

Shea Berkley says:

Thanks for stopping by, Robert. I’m one of those who loves the over-the-top wow of fantasy. I just read The Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss. He does an amazing job with verisimilitude. You believe the guy can do what he says he can do, and you want him to succeed.

Funny — I wrote my comment with fantasy in mind!

I think versimilitude is necessary in fantasy and sci-fi, too. I read plenty of both, and I understand at the outset that I’m getting involved with worlds that aren’t normal — they’re explicitly paranormal. But they nonetheless have rules, and I expect those rules to be consistently applied. I expect strange things to happen, but I expect characters to behave in manners consistent with their species and individual personalities. When a tiny, untrained village girl kills the realm’s most experienced knight with a dull stick, I roll my eyes, and I’m taken out of the story.

Like, take Spock in Star Trek. We all know he’s not human — he’s half-human, half-Vulcan. So we don’t expect him to behave like a human. In fact, we fully expect him to behave inhumanly. That’s part of why we love him. He’s this odd, funny sort of being who doesn’t play by human rules, but nor does he play by Vulcan rules. He is Spock, and there is only one Spock. He is a clearly defined, complex character, and if he shouts at someone for something minor, we know he’s behaving irrationally for Spock. He’s not following the rules we know his character normally follows. If there’s a good reason supplied for that irrationality, then fine. Great character development.

Spock’s having trouble, oh noes!

But if Spock’s just shouting or (gasp) crying for no particular reason, then we’re confused and dismayed. His character is muddled and weakened. He isn’t Spock anymore. He’s just another cardboard character doing something because the author needed him to.

Tamara Hogan says:

I just loved the fact that in the latest “Star Trek” movie (the ‘reboot’ with Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto) it was Spock who got the girl.

New Spock made me go Twilight for new Star Trek.

I just love that movie. I love Star Trek stuff in general. Am I the only one who loved going to the Star Trek bar at the Las Vegas Hilton and yukking it up with the costumed characters? Nothing like kicking it with a Klingon!

Tamara Hogan says:

Yet more evidence that we share a brain – our love of Trek.

Zachary Quinto brought a sensuality to Spock that really hit my, er, sweet spot. There was just so much intensity and emotion roiling under the surface, but so controlled, so tightly leashed.

Fanning myself now.

Elisa Beatty says:

Oh, yes! I wasn’t expecting that at all, and it really grabbed me. (And I’m an old Nimoy-Spock fan). Quinto gave the character a sweeter quality, which I never thought I’d like, but I did (sigh).

Shea Berkley says:

Spock is a great example of this concept, Jamie.

Thanks, Shea! I learned something new today, and have happily applied my lesson!

Elise Hayes says:

My last manuscript–the one that finaled in the 09 GH–was actually a play on verisimilitude (whew, spelling that was an adventure!). I have always loved cross-dressed heroines, but there’s always that little whisper (and sometimes an aggrieved shout) when I think, “yeah, but could a woman *really* pass as a man? Isn’t there a lot more to it than putting on some pants?”

So I came up with a heroine who was *raised* as a boy–and then a man–from infancy. She’s the real deal, a trained knight. And when she’s finally discovered, it’s figuring out how to be a woman that sucks for her–because there’s a lot more to it than putting on a dress.

Now *that* was a lot of fun to write :)

Taking a character out of their comfort zone is what it’s all about. Fun stuff.

Elisa Beatty says:

Great idea, Elise!

Shea Berkley says:

There is a YA out called Graceling by Kristin Cashore that does a similar type of character arc, but not quite. In her book, everyone knows she’s a girl, but she’s not treated as one because her special skill or “grace” is to kill. Very interesting.

Elise Hayes says:

Oh, cool. I’ll have to look this one up. Thanks for letting me know about it, Shea!

Shea Berkley says:

Got to go kickbox. I’ll be back in a few.

My life is altogether too stable and secure. I read fiction to be transported to a much MORE place, a place I’d probably not enjoy living but that’s a really fascinating place to visit (like Singapore or Moscow or Cairo).

When I say a MORE place, I mean MORE dangerous, scary, exciting, sexy, funny, sappy, whatever. None of us read fiction to go somewhere just like home, even if we like “homey” stories. We read to go somewhere MORE than home. Otherwise, we wouldn’t bother reading.

But it’s hard to create a MORE world that’s also got–what’d you call it?–verisimilitude. It’s a struggle for writers to balance the more-ness of a story with its plausibility, because if readers begin to think that no, the sensible, savvy princess we’ve come to love really wouldn’t be so stupid as to house a fire-breathing in her wooden horse barn, then I begin to question everything else in the story. Like, why is there a dragon in the first place? By what biological mechanism, exactly, does it breathe fire?

And why is it always a grubby, orphaned forest boy who ends up being the hero?

Elisa Beatty says:

Aw, I love grubby, orphaned forest boys!

Sure, but can’t he just once have loving, living parents? A mother AND a father, neither of whom drink, beat him, or insist that he take over whatever the family business is?

Shea Berkley says:

I think horror and romantic suspense can easily fall into this problem. Everyone’s seen the heroine who descends into the damp, dark basement because she heard a noise, or goes outside, searching in the dead of night, to check on the cat when she heard on the news a murderer is loose in her neighborhood. Can we say TSTL? (Too Stupid To Live)

We have to pay close attention to motivation in order to get that girl in the basement or outside without a reader slacking the book against the wall.

Even though the movie Disturbia got some bad press for being a rip-off of Rear Window, I liked it. The kid’s motivation was great. The spirit of bored teenagers just messing around felt true, and when their “fun” brought the serial killer’s attention, it took them a moment to shake the “all in fun” factor and for reality to hit. By then, the guy slips into their lives and it becomes do or die time.

Tammy Baumann says:

Hi Shea,

Great post! I think Verisimilitude, or facts of existence, (Hey, I can use Thesaurus.com too!) in writing is essential, but it needs to stay in the back ground. The old saying, ‘write what you know’ is true, but I always like to add, ‘but if you don’t know it, research it’ and then only throw in the essential facts so as not to give yourself away! For the most part, a great book is about the main character’s quest, not the mundane realities like “can a woman really only go to the bathroom only once a day? Well certainly not if she pregnant….if your reader’s mind is pondering things like this, then we need to work on our character building skills.
I think Nora Roberts mentioned once she didn’t want to look-up and adhere to all the rules of police procedure, so she made it up in her fantastic, futuristic J.D. Robb series. She uses stunners instead of guns, personal portable comp units (PPC’s), and receipts for evidence collected, spit out of a little gizmo right on the spot. How convenient! She’s a great example of creating her own world, with just enough realism of what most of us know about police work even if don’t read crime novels or watch CSI.
Tammy

Shea Berkley says:

Ha! Only you would wonder if a woman could go all day without going to the bathroom.

But you’re right. If what we write causes the reader to start questioning our process, then we’ve got problems. Beta readers are great for seeing if we’ve got a strong story happening.

I think one of the reasons I like fantast so much is because I can create my own rules. I’m the ultimate control freak. Muuah-ha-ha!

Tammy Baumann says:

They don’t call me Tiny Tanks for nothing!

Katrina C says:

I want my fiction to be realistic, but not totally real. When I took a screenwriting class years ago, our professor read a classmate’s script and said, “This scene is just too over the top. I can’t believe it would happen.” She told him it had happened in real life to a friend of hers, and he said something I’ll never forget. “Real life can suck, but scripts can’t.”

Shea Berkley says:

Ouch! But he’s right.

Verisimilitude isn’t easy to create. In some instances, we have to condense or alter reality. We know it may take days to do a certain task, but we accept the authors version because we’re more interested in moving the story along. Yeah, it may have happened differently, but skewing reality is what fiction is all about. If a reader is after absolute, factual reality, then that person needs to switch to nonfiction.

Love your post, Shea. For me, If the writing’s interesting, the ‘verisimilitude’ can be stretched. (nice word, by the way–going to use it with my kids) But I really don’t like boring stuff. As you pointed out, no need to have him open the door, sit on the chair, etc. But if I’m really into the book, some far-fetched stuff can happen, and I don’t even notice.

Shea Berkley says:

Exactly. Done well, you won’t even notice those things that make a book feel real. Done poorly, you’ll notice every little flaw.

Alicia Dean says:

Hi Shea…fabulous post! I was only able to skim it because I’m in the midst of about a million things at the moment. But, it definitely caught my interest and I’m coming back to it when I can take my time going over it. This is the sort of thing that will help my writing immensely. Well done!

Shea Berkley says:

Thanks, Alicia. Congratulations on your book release. It’s so exciting Heart of the Witch is a top pick for Dorchester this month.

Rita Henuber says:

Thanks Shea
learned a lot today.

Shea Berkley says:

Thanks, Rita. I just wanna share the little I know.

Gwynlyn MacKenzie says:

They say three is a charm, and this is the third time I’m trying to leave a comment, so here goes.

Great blog, Shea. The need to take the mundane and revamp it, condense it, call it what you will, in the course of writing so we can retain both the story and the reader requires a deft hand. You, apparently, have it.

Shea Berkley says:

I know what you mean, Gwyn. I tried several times today to get on and leave comments and it just kicked me off. Frustrating.

Thank you for the compliment. I’m just really tickled to be a part of such a talented group of writers as our sisterhood.

Robin Perini says:

Hi Shea–

Love the word. Anything over five sylables deserves a standing ‘O’ ;-) .

Since I write RS, I always worry about facts. What I’ve learned is that once you lose the reader, you never get them back. Even if the facts are completely accurate, they stop believing. So, the biggest thing is to keep that suspension of disbelief going. For me, character motivation and pacing are the key. I don’t always succeed, but I try.

Love the article as always, Shea. You’re a truly gifted teacher and writer.

Hugs,
Robin

Shea Berkley says:

Awww, that’s so sweet, but I’m just a little grasshopper compared to you, Robin. Your stories are awesome and I’m confident you’ll soon be published.

Darynda Jones says:

Wonderful post, Shea!!! I couldn’t get by yesterday and I’m so sorry now. I have a new favorite word! And you explained it beautifully.

I love that you took a potentially boring business meeting, threw out elements that might have bogged down the scene or confused the reader, and made it into something so intriguing and utterly uncomfortable for our hero. I can’t count the times a scene wasn’t working and I finally fixed it by taking out extraneous elements, like other people. You make it even harder for the hero. He has to face the dragon completely alone, no backup whatsoever.

Very, very nice!
Thanks,
~D~

Darynda Jones says:

Oh, and I also love your explanation of how John keeps going. It’s all about motivation, but if he ever stops…great post again!!!

Shea Berkley says:

Thanks Darynda. You’re a sweetheart for dropping by.

Kathleen says:

Great post Shea!

post a comment


Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Want your picture to show up with your comment? click here

 

categories

Contest Winners (29)
Golden Heart (57)
Misc (38)