From: b.scott@csuohio.edu
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:40:13 -0400, Michelle Bottorff
wrote
in in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>>>> I actually do understand that one: if one writes to find
>>>> out what happens, then once you find out, the story has
>>>> already been 'written', and finishing the actual writing
>>>> could be pretty boring. It's a bit like suddenly realizing
>>>> how to solve a programming problem cleverly but finding the
>>>> details of coding a bore.
>>> Actually I've always found coding kinda Zen, and after I
>>> have worked out the desired algorythm, I can't wait to
>>> test it out (and besides, if I don't have to why should
>>> I want to risk someone else doing it Wrong?)
>> But for me the interesting part was usually working out
>> the method; at that point I knew that it would work if
>> properly coded. Unless I was personally interested in
>> the output, I'd already obtained my reward.
> I usually code because I'm personally interested in
> having a program that does whatever the program does.
> So I don't get what I want until it's written and the
> bugs are squashed.
> But I don't really consider the two very equivalent
> anyway. Coding is much easier. Possibly because once
> you know how you are going to do something, then the
> rest is just typing.
Not in my experience. I suspect that we have different
notions of what constitutes having worked out the method.
For me that’s a pretty high-level notion: there may still
be quite a few problems to be solved, but the key break has
been made. It may also be relevant that back in the days
when I actually did a lot of programming, I was by choice
mostly programming in IBM 360 Assembler, so not only could
I still have a few lesser conceptural problems to solve, I
also typically had a *lot* of finicky details to get right.
> When writing, that just isn't true.
> As an example...
> I recently started a short story as something to write
> when I don't feel intelligent enough to edit. I picked
> a story that had been in my head for a while, was short
> and "easy" and I pretty much already knew the plot.
> So far, my favorite part of the story is one of the minor
> characters -- a divorced construction foreman named
> Eddie.
> I knew of Eddie's existance before I started, because I
> knew that he would play a joke on my hero. But I didn't
> know I would like him.
> But, when I actually write his dialog, suddenly here he
> is claiming that he's going to write a self-help book
> about reading character from a person's shoes, and
> threatening to elope with my hero's widowed mother on
> his 'hog', and I'm delighted.
> And thus my problem with "everything is decided".
> How can anyone possibly know every line of dialog in
> advance?
They don’t, of course. The people for whom the story is
essentially written once they know how it works out don’t
see that dialogue as an essential element of the story:
it’s part of the decoration, so to speak. To return to my
programming analogy, I might well have been delighted after
the fact to have come up with an efficient and elegant bit
of code for some part of the program, but that’s still just
a detail. (Mind you, I’m certainly not claiming that the
analogy is perfect; I’m saying only that it gives me
genuine insight into the reaction of that kind of writer.)
Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
