People are interested in reading about other people, whether real or fictional. Without characters a murder mystery becomes just a police report, an historical romance just a history text. Hopefully, these exercises will help you create dynamic, interesting and believable characters your readers will really care about.
Exercise 1
Create a character from one aspect of your personality. Make this trait the main force of the character's feelings and thoughts. If you are shy, for example, make your character much more shy than you. In every other way - age, occupation, appearance, this character should be very different to you. Now describe that character's behaviour, in summary, in several social situations interacting (or avoiding interaction) with several relatives, strangers and workmates.
Exercise 2
Character tags can show personality, create tension, make your character more human. Try giving one of your characters a word tag - something only they say, that makes them instantly recognisable. Think of Steve Irwin's ubiquitous 'Crikey!' Or perhaps one of your characters calls everyone 'Babe', or uses slang or has an accent. Try using action tags for some of your characters. Does your protagonist jiggle their car keys in their pocket when they are nervous? Perhaps she constantly chews gum? Repeatedly clicks pens when bored in meetings? Using the character you created in Exercise 1, write a short piece in which they display a distinctive tag.
Exercise 3
Write a page using setting to reveal your character. Choose a setting relevant to that character, such as bedroom, office, garden etc and through its description paint a picture of your character.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Don't be Afraid of What You Don't Know by Rob Parnell
I attended a writer's workshop last Saturday night. (Clearly no rocking out in clubland for me anymore!)
The guest speaker was a successful editor for a well known publishing house. It was fascinating to have so many submission issues confirmed from, as it were, the horse's mouth.
I'll summarize here some of the most pertinent points she made.
First off, she said around 85% of all the manuscripts she received from budding authors were a waste of her time. They were clearly written by people who had never bothered to read guidelines, format correctly or even study basic punctuation, spelling and grammar.
This is a startling statistic. In essence, over 4 out of every 5 writers, in her words, deserve to be rejected simply because they don't bother to research the craft of writing before they start firing off their manuscripts.
Ironically, she said, this makes her job easier. Because, in order to save time, she never reads on if there are simple errors on page one. Why should she? If a writer can't get the first page error free, what hope is there that the writing will get any better?
Presentation is so very important.
Of the remaining 15%, the contenders for publication, the issues were more to do with story and style.
She confirmed to me that originality, though nice, was not often a consideration. Simply because the chances of a writer coming up with something original AND well written were so slim that it could never be a deciding factor.
What interested her most was 'voice' - the nebulous quality she said only the best writers seemed able to master. She said it was apparent that only after the writer fully understood the mechanics of writing (grammar especially) that the voice was able to come through with any degree of effectiveness.
Pet peeves included: the overuse of 'that' 'and' as well as 'had'. She said good writers should be able to spot their overuse and rearrange sentences to avoid relying on them.
She didn't like what she called 'filters'. This was the use of words that distance a reader from the characters. Words like 'felt', 'thought', 'decided' and 'realized' - as well as vague qualifiers like 'very', 'almost', 'nearly', which were to be avoided (read, deleted.)
Also, the old chestnut, "Don't use adverbs," she said, "ever!"
She loathed the penchant of newbies to write long compound sentences where the subject becomes obscured - and the grammar becomes suspect at best. Keep the sentences short and easy to understand was her advice, unless you know exactly what you're doing (which 98% of us don't, she said.)
Most of her job - after reading manuscripts - was editing them for publication.
Her decisions over who to publish therefore were often based upon her assessment of how easy a writer was going to be to work with.
If the manuscript was full of stylistic errors (she reasoned from experience) then the writer was probably going to be difficult. She'd heard the, "It's not incorrect, it's my style" argument all too often - and yes, it generally only came from newbies.
Contrary to myth, most professionals embrace alterations to their work. And compromise makes for a pleasant working relationship.
Towards the end of the workshop you could almost feel the exasperation of the writers. How were they ever going to be good enough for publication, one writer asked.
We were missing the point, she said.
Studying the craft of writing was something she expected writers to do - on an ongoing basis. She wanted well presented and well written manuscripts first, then she looked for good stories told with a strong voice.
Until she found them, she wanted writers to at least look as though they were writing to the very best of their ability.
"Don't be intimidated by what you don't know," she said, "but do study and research the rules of writing consistently.
"To which she added, "It's the only way to improve - and maximize your chances of publication.
"I agree, don't you?
Keep Writing
Author: Rob Parnell of Easy Way to Write
The guest speaker was a successful editor for a well known publishing house. It was fascinating to have so many submission issues confirmed from, as it were, the horse's mouth.
I'll summarize here some of the most pertinent points she made.
First off, she said around 85% of all the manuscripts she received from budding authors were a waste of her time. They were clearly written by people who had never bothered to read guidelines, format correctly or even study basic punctuation, spelling and grammar.
This is a startling statistic. In essence, over 4 out of every 5 writers, in her words, deserve to be rejected simply because they don't bother to research the craft of writing before they start firing off their manuscripts.
Ironically, she said, this makes her job easier. Because, in order to save time, she never reads on if there are simple errors on page one. Why should she? If a writer can't get the first page error free, what hope is there that the writing will get any better?
Presentation is so very important.
Of the remaining 15%, the contenders for publication, the issues were more to do with story and style.
She confirmed to me that originality, though nice, was not often a consideration. Simply because the chances of a writer coming up with something original AND well written were so slim that it could never be a deciding factor.
What interested her most was 'voice' - the nebulous quality she said only the best writers seemed able to master. She said it was apparent that only after the writer fully understood the mechanics of writing (grammar especially) that the voice was able to come through with any degree of effectiveness.
Pet peeves included: the overuse of 'that' 'and' as well as 'had'. She said good writers should be able to spot their overuse and rearrange sentences to avoid relying on them.
She didn't like what she called 'filters'. This was the use of words that distance a reader from the characters. Words like 'felt', 'thought', 'decided' and 'realized' - as well as vague qualifiers like 'very', 'almost', 'nearly', which were to be avoided (read, deleted.)
Also, the old chestnut, "Don't use adverbs," she said, "ever!"
She loathed the penchant of newbies to write long compound sentences where the subject becomes obscured - and the grammar becomes suspect at best. Keep the sentences short and easy to understand was her advice, unless you know exactly what you're doing (which 98% of us don't, she said.)
Most of her job - after reading manuscripts - was editing them for publication.
Her decisions over who to publish therefore were often based upon her assessment of how easy a writer was going to be to work with.
If the manuscript was full of stylistic errors (she reasoned from experience) then the writer was probably going to be difficult. She'd heard the, "It's not incorrect, it's my style" argument all too often - and yes, it generally only came from newbies.
Contrary to myth, most professionals embrace alterations to their work. And compromise makes for a pleasant working relationship.
Towards the end of the workshop you could almost feel the exasperation of the writers. How were they ever going to be good enough for publication, one writer asked.
We were missing the point, she said.
Studying the craft of writing was something she expected writers to do - on an ongoing basis. She wanted well presented and well written manuscripts first, then she looked for good stories told with a strong voice.
Until she found them, she wanted writers to at least look as though they were writing to the very best of their ability.
"Don't be intimidated by what you don't know," she said, "but do study and research the rules of writing consistently.
"To which she added, "It's the only way to improve - and maximize your chances of publication.
"I agree, don't you?
Keep Writing
Author: Rob Parnell of Easy Way to Write
Reflections
I look in the mirror,The reflection I see is clear blue skies,
Tiny tufts of feather down clouds,
Sunlight glinting on golden curls
It’s a day at the beach in Sorrento
For a little girl in
Red bathers with a koala appliqué
She proudly wears her mother’s dark glasses
While she soars high on a swing
Then falls onto a bed of wood chips
She’s crying
Her father picks her up
And cradles her in his arms
Now there are two little girls,
Sisters, both golden-haired, licking ice-cream – blue heaven,
From Mr Shapaelis’ ice-cream shop
As they sit in the family car
And watch the seas pound Sorrento’s back beach
Wild, majestic, dangerous
The sisters explore the sheltered rock pools,
Feet sinking into sand
As they venture into the warm water
Searching for shells, starfish, seaweed
Then Mum, Dad, and two little girls climb to the lookout
Up there it feels like the top of the world
The wind howls its mournful cry, seagulls screech
But the little girls are unafraid because
Life is carefree, safe and secure with loving parents
I rub my eyes
Reflecting back at me is no longer a happy family
But an old woman still with golden hair
Her face wrinkled, careworn
A legacy of life’s worries
And in later years, illness
She looks tired and is frowning
Tears surprise me
And glint like dewdrops in the morning on her face
I angrily wipe them away
And turning from the mirror
Am filled with a deep sadness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)