On 07 Jun 2014 13:28:00 +0200, A_Tina_Hall@kruemel.org (A. Tina Hall)   
   wrote:   
      
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >> 1. To write in sentences and paragraphs except when it is necessarily   
   >> otherwise for the personality of the characters and useful to the   
   >> story. You can learn this, but some are born with this ability.   
   >   
   >That goes in line with so-called 'rules' (that are better ignored) of   
   >what (not) to do.   
   >   
   >If a sentence reads better, a paragraph flows better, and a sequence of   
   >paragraphs joins up better with Grammar that would send some people run   
   >screaming (or waving torches), then that's the way to do them.   
   >   
   >For me it's a feeling. (I can feel when something's off, but I don't   
   >always know how to fix it.) Also, a break in between reading might   
   >highlight something. Time of day/tiredness can also influence this.   
   >   
   >> 2. To write with a beginning, middle, and end. You can learn this.   
   >   
   >I disagree. I don't see where they are supposed to be in other stories,   
   >and don't write with any frame of what's to go where in mind.   
   >   
   A story has a beginning, middle, and end. A vignette has a frozen   
   snapshot with an implied beginning, middle, and end. A story may   
   possible have an implied beginning and/or ending (for stronger values   
   of implied than a vignette). Without a beginning, middle, and end,   
   it's not a story.   
      
   If nothing changes, it's not usually a story, If something changes   
   there's at least a why which implies a beginning and middle, although   
   the end may be either implied or left as a question for the reader.   
      
   If you have an obstacle with such a frame, You wouldn't be able to   
   actually write a "story." This does not prevent you from writing a   
   vignette.   
      
   >Such a frame would be an obstacle to me, if anything.   
   >   
   >> 3. A sense of the music of words.   
   >   
   >I don't really know what you mean by that. Can you rephrase it?   
      
   I had hoped that the two examples I supplied would suffice. Brendan   
   Behan, Under Milk Wood is a particularly obvious example. This seems   
   to be a property of poets and occasional writers. TS Eliot in Murder   
   in the Cathedral ("Yet we go on living,/living and partially living.")   
   is another. Almost the entire play, JB by Archibald McLeash is a   
   retelling of the Book of Job based on the King James Version, and it   
   also sings. You may be able to describe it better than I can if you   
   take a look at any of the examples.   
      
   >   
   >> 4. To know where to start the story, and to know when to end the   
   >> story.   
   >   
   >I agree, as long as you don't mean you have to know that from the start.   
   >(Not everyone writes that way.)   
      
   You don't need to know from the start. Many authors give more   
   backstory than is needed to set up the story and continue after the   
   climax or character growth to fill out an idea that is better left to   
   the reader's imagination to tell.   
      
   A particularly good example of this comes from Harry Potter. The   
   epilog tells us that Harry and Ginny lived happily ever after, same   
   for Ron and Hermione. People don't live happily everafter - when you   
   have a series of adventures, happily ever after is rapidly boring. The   
   epilog was 1) unnecessary, 2) detrimental to the story, and 3) out of   
   character with the preceding several thousand pages.   
      
   >   
   >> You also need certain things NOT happening to you.   
   >   
   >> 1. You need to have an TOTALLY honest relationship with some primary   
   >> role model.   
   >   
   >What?   
   >   
   >> Otherwise, your role models will teach you to be blind to   
   >> their own shortcomings. Almost everybody develops "blind spots" where   
   >> they learn "not to see" whatever their parents want to keep hidden.   
   >> (Almost all children develop blind spots.)   
   >   
   >You lost me.   
   >   
   >Only thing I can think of is the character behaviour (including   
   >thoughts) that annoys me in stories, which is why I stopped buying books   
   >and write my own. Most people think such behaviour is ok and normal. I   
   >so disagree.   
      
   The easiest way to describe this is "do as I say, not as I do."   
   Virtually all parents say this to children and it never quite works.   
   Basically what happens is that the message to the child comes off as:   
   "You didn't see Mommy do that," so just pretend that never happened   
   and "learn not to see it if it happens again." The kid develops a   
   blind spot and can't see him/her self doing the same thing. (Mommy   
   does that, so it's okay to do that, but nobody can see, so when I do   
   it [because Mommy does it] I won't be able to see myself doing it   
   because Mommy says it's bad.)   
      
   Sorry, almost everybody has blind spots, and very few ever learn to   
   see them - that's how "family business" (games and co-dependencies)   
   pass from generation to generation. If you are not really aware of   
   this, see a good therapist for a few years.   
      
   Basically, it comes down to this: God and Goddess (Mommy and Daddy) do   
   it so it's okay. (Attitude is okay.) Mommy and Daddy didn't do it   
   right because it made me unhappy. Therefore, I will have the same   
   attitude and do it better. This is the main reason why child abuse   
   travels down generations. The attitude is the same, but the methods   
   are different. The abuse changes from physical in one generation to   
   emotional in the next, or vice versa, but the attitude (or family   
   business) stays the same. Same problem with adult children of   
   alcoholic parents.   
   >   
   >> Character-driven stories come from observation of people. Plot-driven   
   >> stories come from observations of complex systems.   
   >   
   >Don't know. In my observation, plot makes characters act stupid.   
      
   Exactly.   
      
   >And   
   >character-driven sounds like something other than just following the   
   >characters around (which is what I do). I like spending time with   
   >pleasant characters. The bad is just an excuse to show them, or part of   
   >the setting, until it got rolling and things get difficult all on its   
   >own. Without the characters being stupid! (It's a bit like a tree that   
   >grows. Or weaving a carpet. If you're doing the latter you don't   
   >immediately see how the bits on each line will connect on the whole   
   >picture. I keep being amazed by that.)   
   >   
   >Doing that carpet deliberately would so not work for me.   
      
   You can't make it work very well doing it deliberately. Character   
   driven means that the what happens follows the expression of the   
   personality of the character, and not external events. It is a   
   conflict of attitudes that leads to actions that form a story related   
   to the attitude more than the events.   
      
   This kind of story grows like a tree. However, it is equally true that   
   you can tell what kind of tree you are going to get by knowing the   
   kind of seed. The end is pretty much implied by the beginning. You   
   know where the attitude goes, so you select from the possible events   
   that affirm, deny, or change the attitude to move the story forward.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)