Re:When did mediocrity become something to shoot f
on
Kamikaze Novel Writing
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I just see a lot of beginners tackling novels before they have the skills to do it, and getting so wrapped up in their baby that it's devestating when they can't sell it.
That's the beauty of NaNoWriMo. It's so ridiculous, so high-spirited, so much pure fun, that no one expects their novels to be great literary works of art. They're not paralyzed by the fear that they'll write 50,000 words of crap, because they expect to write 50,000 words of crap. Instead of spending years struggling to write the Great American Novel and then being devastated when that first effort doesn't sell, they can write 50,000 words of something they enjoy for pure fun, and learn something in the process. And they don't have to invest years of struggle into it.
For a few people (myself included), that first hectic effort is a very rough draft that later gets ripped apart - I literally cut and reworked 40,000 words in my first edit alone - and polished several times for eventual submission to publishers. In those cases, we're still talking about a significant time investment and a serious project. For other people, it's just fun, a way to see if they can do it.
I haven't yet seen anyone on NaNo who considered their unedited NaNo effort to be a work of genius or who was disappointed about seeing it rejected. And at the rate of one NaNo a year, a writer would likely have at least two books completed before getting the first one rejected, so there's unlikely to be the same element of "I can't believe they rejected my baby" in the process.
You say that the idea of writing a novel before you were ready was psychologically daunting. The whole point of NaNo is to make the process less psychologically daunting. Isn't that a good thing?
If I remember right, anyway, the sign-ups go until the last week of November. So you can't write your novel on the last day, but you still have plenty of time to sign up.
Re:When did mediocrity become something to shoot f
on
Kamikaze Novel Writing
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
All I can say is I learned more from writing 57,000 words in a month last year (actually, 94,000 in two months, since I didn't stop) than I learned in over ten years of writing short stories.
You don't learn much about scenes from writing short stories. You don't learn much about gradual character development, or long-term plot arcs, or pacing of subplots. Short stories can teach you basic skills of writing description and good sentences, but so can essays and writing exercises.
More importantly, they require different skills. They require a concise idea and usually a single plotline. They require a certain style of presenting and dealing with characters that doesn't apply to longer works.
Some people seem to be natural short story writers, some natural novelists. Some people can easily handle both. The problem is with the people who are natural novelists: excellent at long plots, large casts, and gradual character developments, but no good at handling the short-story format. They're told repeatedly that they have to do stories before they can do novels, and they end up never trying novels because they haven't had success with short stories. This is the sort of person who is an excellent candidate for NaNoWriMo.
What I discovered last year was that for me, novels are easy, breathtakingly easy, compared to short stories. I could write a single novel in the time it took me to develop one or two painful and difficult short stories. And it was fun and fascinating, and the writing got markedly better as I went on. (Though it wasn't much to brag about before the second edit.) Apparently, I'm not much of a concise-idea person, but I do well with a long, complicated plot structure.
If short stories helped you, then great. But don't assume that it works the same way for everyone. Many people spend years hearing the myth that you must learn short stories first, and never get a chance to develop their real skills with novels.
Re:When did mediocrity become something to shoot f
on
Kamikaze Novel Writing
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
What they should be doing is practicing their craft on short stories, failing and learning there, before tackling an entire novel with any hope for success.
Short stories and novels are totally different fields. That's like saying you need to practice writing four-minute pop songs before you can learn to write a symphony. You learn to write novels by writing novels, not by writing short stories.
"Not surprisingly, this topic is red hot with controversy -- sharply dividing a world scientific community still on its guard after the ``Cold Fusion'' fiasco of 1989"
If you'll read this sentence in context, you'll notice that the topic, not this specific invention, is referred to as a controversy. The debate is whether what he claims to be doing is theoretically possible, not whether he has done it - and considering the heated argument I'm seeing in this very discussion about that subject, I think calling it a controversy is accurate.
The Reuters story doesn't once say "this is true," either. In fact, they go to great lengths to explain why the guy is probably a crackpot.
I'd like to see a retraction from Slashdot on this one - since, unlike the Reuters story, the Slashdot story is actually false, in that it claims Reuters was wrong. But Reuters was scrupulously accurate - quoting the man's claims, then quoting experts, then explaining the claims and why they're unlikely to be possible, while never once stating that he's legit or even that it's very likely he's legit.
Can I get my T-shirt now? I'd like it signed from Michael, "I admit I was wrong, and futhermore, I don't understand the first thing about journalism. I expected all journalists to take my side in stories rather than presenting a balanced viewpoint. Now I see what an idiot I was."
I particularly enjoy the way he makes mid-west america come alive. I have never physically been to the mid-west, but thanks to King, i have been there.
Uh, King writes almost exclusively about Maine. Look at a map, OK?
I'm still trying to find out what a "virius" is. I mean, at least "viri" would be a correctly formed Latin plural... but "virii"? What the heck is up with that?
More importantly, what the heck do they think is wrong with the sentence in the EULA? It's perfectly correct. The grammar is fine - the *style* may be questionable, since the sentence is cumbersome and long, but we are talking about a legal agreement here, so that's normal enough.
If the U.S. wants justice the answer is to support international organizations like the international court. Give them the mandate and the resources to pursue international criminals.
Why are you considering this a criminal action instead of the military attack that it effectively was?
We're not talking about a small group of criminals. We're talking about a large terrorist organization that killed 10,000 civilians and tried to destroy the Pentagon. That's a military action, and it requires a military response.
We didn't send police to Japan after Pearl Harbor, and we shouldn't send police to Afghanistan now. We should send in the army, bomb bin Laden's camps to the ground, and invade Afghanistan if they try to protect him.
This isn't about criminal justice. It's not about proving we have balls. It's not about retaliation. It's about responding appropriately to a military threat.
I don't know WHAT they are talking about -- I can find ANYTHING that I look for on Google -- even sites that I have
just created a day or two ago have been found.
You're kidding, right? Or have you just not tried it in the last year or two? I submitted my site to Google -- and everywhere else -- two months ago and have yet to see it. And I wasn't about to pay the $199 to Yahoo or Lycos to get it listed. Bastards.
The US has not given money to groups outside the US who perform or endorse abortions since 1973.
Not true. The 1973 law bans U.S. money being spent on abortions. Bush's restriction -- the same one Reagan and Bush Sr. implemented, and Clinton repealed -- bans U.S. money going to any international group that performs abortions or gives information about them, regardless of where the U.S. funding is going. So the U.S. cannot fund a program to teach women in poor countries how to use birth control, if that program is sponsored by a group that also performs abortions. This is a big change, and will mean many of these groups will have to compromise their principles or lose funding.
Yeah, 50/50 is probably an exaggeration... but if you say 40/60 overall, or 50/50 in gamers under 25, I'd believe it. Most of the girls I know in this age category, while not into Quake or anything similar, at least play Diablo, Zelda, Final Fantasy, whatever -- not just solitaire. And I'm sick of generalizations from older gamers and men who don't have female friends, who just *assume* that because they don't know women gamers, women don't game.
The hardcore *anything* market is usually male, as most women have more diverse interests than men (I'm female, and this is one gender-based generalization I'm willing to agree on). Most women I know have too many interests and simply lack the time to be hardcore gamers, hardcore fanfic writers, hardcore movie buffs, or anything else.
The lamers are easy to ignore in online games, anyway -- most women probably do what I do, use a male or neutral login name and let everyone assume I'm male.
I'm 31. I play computer games. I know lots of people who play computer and video games, young
and old (like me.) And the vast majority are guys. There's no way in hell that the `players are evenly
divided between men and women'
And, of course, anecdotal evidence from someone who is older than most gamers is supposed to be better proof than scientifically conducted surveys?
The numbers support the story. 40-50 percent of people who play video games are women, in every study I've seen. I doubt that as many serious gamers are women -- most women aren't that single-minded -- but every single female I know in my age range (23) plays games of some type, usually Playstation but also PC games.
If it's not a Frankensteinesque beige monstrosity with the cover permanently off, several drives that don't quite fit the bays they are in and stick out the front, fans all over the place and cables in danger of catching your feet as you use the thing as a footrest and try not to spill cereal on it, it's not a REAL computer.
The mahogany box was pretty neat, though, I have to admit.
I didn't visit the site this time because I know that it invariably crashes Netscape on Windows or Mac OS, and I do mean every single time.
The newspaper I work at runs a tech-oriented column that mentioned this site one week, and since the columnist didn't bother checking for himself if it would load under anything but Internet Explorer, we had to insert a note saying not to view it with Netscape. Grrr.
Anyway, this little problem is definitely worth noting, and NOT flamebait.
Doesn't anyone actually check the source of a story? That "AP" at the beginning means it's an Associated Press story. It has nothing to do with CNN. I see this all the freakin' time on Slashdot. A little journalism knowledge couldn't hurt, guys.
Do you support our country's current procedure for holding presidential elections? If so, could you explain why heavily skewing the results toward the two major-party candidates is beneficial? If not, how would you like to see election laws changed?
They get home with "Purity In A Box", struggle through the install, and find out it's more trouble than it's worth. They decide not to use it but, for purposes of statistics, they are considered censorware "users".
Funny, the only person I've ever known who used censorware was a girl my age -- 23 -- who, when she set up her parents' box, turned on parental controls and installed censorware, so they wouldn't accidentally screw up system files or run into anything naughty on the Net.
Come to think of it, the only people I'd recommend censorware for are my parents and my grandfather. They'd probably be more shocked by Net porn than most teen-agers I know.
Lemme get this straight. Talking about sex and playing basketball are key activities conducted by us insidious men that help keep women out of the CS field?
Did no one actually *read* "Why are There so Few Female Computer Scientists?" She specifically refutes the possibility of any kind of conspiracy by men/society in general against girls. She cites several examples in which men whose behavior was pointed out to them immediately changed their attitudes and apologized.
And this is the problem. Blatant conspiracy, like racism, is something that can be fought. Subconscious attitudes are not. I'm always surprised at how many men on Slashdot are offended by this topic of conversation, as if they were being accused of "keeping women out" of computer science. As I, and probably most of the women here, can attest, this kind of sexism almost never comes from geeks. Every single male geek I know think it's wonderful that I know something about computers - anything at all.
I also don't see any real barriers to my attaining an IT career, if I wanted one (I'm only a hobby geek). Not now - now that I'm an adult and make decisions about my lifed based on careful planning and consideration of what I really want.
But back when I was in high school, I ran like hell from the geeks. Not the people themselves - they were great - but from being identified with them. I regularly set the curve in my AP Calc II class, and I hated myself for it. I stopped playing D&D. I stopped using computers. I made friends with the orchestra and drama geeks, because I felt accepted there. I told people I wanted to be a *housewife* when I grew up. It took years of college to overcome my own fears that if people thought I was too smart, no one would like me.
So that's why comments like this one always set my teeth on edge. Mention that our society has a lot of unhealthy stereotypes - held by women just as often as by men - and the conspiracy theorists come out of the woodwork. "Women whine that they can't get IT jobs because a fifth-grade teacher didn't call on them!" they complain.
All anyone is saying is that attitudes should change. Is that too much to ask?
I often wonder if journalists should be allowed to write their own headlines instead of a copy editor slapping one on. Some of them might be as clever and inventive as you were this time.
I'm a copy editor, and trust me, you don't want to read reporters' headlines. You'd have newspapers full of "Committee agrees to discuss political issue at next meeting." If you see boring, information-free headlines like that one, you'll know that a copy editor just slapped a reporter's headline on his own story.
Back on topic, though, I really have to point out that what Katz is spouting this time is the same tripe I used to hear from journalism professors (not to mention freshman journalism students), and now occasionally from clueless corporate types from my newspaper. There are at least two kinds of people who are too smart to buy into this "new media will replace journalism!" crap, and those are serious journalists and serious geeks.
Serious journalists know that most of the internet's affect on news reporting is manner and timeliness, not content. Yes, journalists are having to adapt to a fast-paced 24-hour news schedule. But news is news. The internet won't kill journalism any more than it will kill books.
And, of course, serious geeks know better than to listen to Katz.
Slashdot Mirror
I just see a lot of beginners tackling novels before they have the skills to do it, and getting so wrapped up in their baby that it's devestating when they can't sell it.
That's the beauty of NaNoWriMo. It's so ridiculous, so high-spirited, so much pure fun, that no one expects their novels to be great literary works of art. They're not paralyzed by the fear that they'll write 50,000 words of crap, because they expect to write 50,000 words of crap. Instead of spending years struggling to write the Great American Novel and then being devastated when that first effort doesn't sell, they can write 50,000 words of something they enjoy for pure fun, and learn something in the process. And they don't have to invest years of struggle into it.
For a few people (myself included), that first hectic effort is a very rough draft that later gets ripped apart - I literally cut and reworked 40,000 words in my first edit alone - and polished several times for eventual submission to publishers. In those cases, we're still talking about a significant time investment and a serious project. For other people, it's just fun, a way to see if they can do it.
I haven't yet seen anyone on NaNo who considered their unedited NaNo effort to be a work of genius or who was disappointed about seeing it rejected. And at the rate of one NaNo a year, a writer would likely have at least two books completed before getting the first one rejected, so there's unlikely to be the same element of "I can't believe they rejected my baby" in the process.
You say that the idea of writing a novel before you were ready was psychologically daunting. The whole point of NaNo is to make the process less psychologically daunting. Isn't that a good thing?
If I remember right, anyway, the sign-ups go until the last week of November. So you can't write your novel on the last day, but you still have plenty of time to sign up.
All I can say is I learned more from writing 57,000 words in a month last year (actually, 94,000 in two months, since I didn't stop) than I learned in over ten years of writing short stories.
You don't learn much about scenes from writing short stories. You don't learn much about gradual character development, or long-term plot arcs, or pacing of subplots. Short stories can teach you basic skills of writing description and good sentences, but so can essays and writing exercises.
More importantly, they require different skills. They require a concise idea and usually a single plotline. They require a certain style of presenting and dealing with characters that doesn't apply to longer works.
Some people seem to be natural short story writers, some natural novelists. Some people can easily handle both. The problem is with the people who are natural novelists: excellent at long plots, large casts, and gradual character developments, but no good at handling the short-story format. They're told repeatedly that they have to do stories before they can do novels, and they end up never trying novels because they haven't had success with short stories. This is the sort of person who is an excellent candidate for NaNoWriMo.
What I discovered last year was that for me, novels are easy, breathtakingly easy, compared to short stories. I could write a single novel in the time it took me to develop one or two painful and difficult short stories. And it was fun and fascinating, and the writing got markedly better as I went on. (Though it wasn't much to brag about before the second edit.) Apparently, I'm not much of a concise-idea person, but I do well with a long, complicated plot structure.
If short stories helped you, then great. But don't assume that it works the same way for everyone. Many people spend years hearing the myth that you must learn short stories first, and never get a chance to develop their real skills with novels.
Massive amounts of pointless time?
Let me guess, you don't have any kids.
What they should be doing is practicing their craft on short stories, failing and learning there, before tackling an entire novel with any hope for success.
Short stories and novels are totally different fields. That's like saying you need to practice writing four-minute pop songs before you can learn to write a symphony. You learn to write novels by writing novels, not by writing short stories.
"Not surprisingly, this topic is red hot with controversy -- sharply dividing a world scientific community still on its guard after the ``Cold Fusion'' fiasco of 1989"
If you'll read this sentence in context, you'll notice that the topic, not this specific invention, is referred to as a controversy. The debate is whether what he claims to be doing is theoretically possible, not whether he has done it - and considering the heated argument I'm seeing in this very discussion about that subject, I think calling it a controversy is accurate.
From a fellow journalist - thank you, thank you, thank you.
The Reuters story doesn't once say "this is true," either. In fact, they go to great lengths to explain why the guy is probably a crackpot.
I'd like to see a retraction from Slashdot on this one - since, unlike the Reuters story, the Slashdot story is actually false, in that it claims Reuters was wrong. But Reuters was scrupulously accurate - quoting the man's claims, then quoting experts, then explaining the claims and why they're unlikely to be possible, while never once stating that he's legit or even that it's very likely he's legit.
Can I get my T-shirt now? I'd like it signed from Michael, "I admit I was wrong, and futhermore, I don't understand the first thing about journalism. I expected all journalists to take my side in stories rather than presenting a balanced viewpoint. Now I see what an idiot I was."
Thanks.
I think we've all read them.
That's why no one has mentioned Eddings.
I particularly enjoy the way he makes mid-west america come alive. I have never physically been to the mid-west, but thanks to King, i have been there.
Uh, King writes almost exclusively about Maine. Look at a map, OK?
I'm still trying to find out what a "virius" is. I mean, at least "viri" would be a correctly formed Latin plural ... but "virii"? What the heck is up with that?
Of course, "viriiz" is even worse.
Where's the verb in this sentence?
More importantly, what the heck do they think is wrong with the sentence in the EULA? It's perfectly correct. The grammar is fine - the *style* may be questionable, since the sentence is cumbersome and long, but we are talking about a legal agreement here, so that's normal enough.
- copy editor, Lythe
If the U.S. wants justice the answer is to support international organizations like the international court. Give them the mandate and the resources to pursue international criminals.
Why are you considering this a criminal action instead of the military attack that it effectively was?
We're not talking about a small group of criminals. We're talking about a large terrorist organization that killed 10,000 civilians and tried to destroy the Pentagon. That's a military action, and it requires a military response.
We didn't send police to Japan after Pearl Harbor, and we shouldn't send police to Afghanistan now. We should send in the army, bomb bin Laden's camps to the ground, and invade Afghanistan if they try to protect him.
This isn't about criminal justice. It's not about proving we have balls. It's not about retaliation. It's about responding appropriately to a military threat.
I don't know WHAT they are talking about -- I can find ANYTHING that I look for on Google -- even sites that I have just created a day or two ago have been found.
You're kidding, right? Or have you just not tried it in the last year or two? I submitted my site to Google -- and everywhere else -- two months ago and have yet to see it. And I wasn't about to pay the $199 to Yahoo or Lycos to get it listed. Bastards.
The US has not given money to groups outside the US who perform or endorse abortions since 1973.
Not true. The 1973 law bans U.S. money being spent on abortions. Bush's restriction -- the same one Reagan and Bush Sr. implemented, and Clinton repealed -- bans U.S. money going to any international group that performs abortions or gives information about them, regardless of where the U.S. funding is going. So the U.S. cannot fund a program to teach women in poor countries how to use birth control, if that program is sponsored by a group that also performs abortions. This is a big change, and will mean many of these groups will have to compromise their principles or lose funding.
Yeah, 50/50 is probably an exaggeration ... but if you say 40/60 overall, or 50/50 in gamers under 25, I'd believe it. Most of the girls I know in this age category, while not into Quake or anything similar, at least play Diablo, Zelda, Final Fantasy, whatever -- not just solitaire. And I'm sick of generalizations from older gamers and men who don't have female friends, who just *assume* that because they don't know women gamers, women don't game.
The hardcore *anything* market is usually male, as most women have more diverse interests than men (I'm female, and this is one gender-based generalization I'm willing to agree on). Most women I know have too many interests and simply lack the time to be hardcore gamers, hardcore fanfic writers, hardcore movie buffs, or anything else.
The lamers are easy to ignore in online games, anyway -- most women probably do what I do, use a male or neutral login name and let everyone assume I'm male.
I'm 31. I play computer games. I know lots of people who play computer and video games, young and old (like me.) And the vast majority are guys. There's no way in hell that the `players are evenly divided between men and women'
And, of course, anecdotal evidence from someone who is older than most gamers is supposed to be better proof than scientifically conducted surveys?
The numbers support the story. 40-50 percent of people who play video games are women, in every study I've seen. I doubt that as many serious gamers are women -- most women aren't that single-minded -- but every single female I know in my age range (23) plays games of some type, usually Playstation but also PC games.
If it's not a Frankensteinesque beige monstrosity with the cover permanently off, several drives that don't quite fit the bays they are in and stick out the front, fans all over the place and cables in danger of catching your feet as you use the thing as a footrest and try not to spill cereal on it, it's not a REAL computer.
The mahogany box was pretty neat, though, I have to admit.
I didn't visit the site this time because I know that it invariably crashes Netscape on Windows or Mac OS, and I do mean every single time.
The newspaper I work at runs a tech-oriented column that mentioned this site one week, and since the columnist didn't bother checking for himself if it would load under anything but Internet Explorer, we had to insert a note saying not to view it with Netscape. Grrr.
Anyway, this little problem is definitely worth noting, and NOT flamebait.
Doesn't anyone actually check the source of a story? That "AP" at the beginning means it's an Associated Press story. It has nothing to do with CNN. I see this all the freakin' time on Slashdot. A little journalism knowledge couldn't hurt, guys.
Do you support our country's current procedure for holding presidential elections? If so, could you explain why heavily skewing the results toward the two major-party candidates is beneficial? If not, how would you like to see election laws changed?
They get home with "Purity In A Box", struggle through the install, and find out it's more trouble than it's worth. They decide not to use it but, for purposes of statistics, they are considered censorware "users".
Funny, the only person I've ever known who used censorware was a girl my age -- 23 -- who, when she set up her parents' box, turned on parental controls and installed censorware, so they wouldn't accidentally screw up system files or run into anything naughty on the Net.
Come to think of it, the only people I'd recommend censorware for are my parents and my grandfather. They'd probably be more shocked by Net porn than most teen-agers I know.
Lemme get this straight. Talking about sex and playing basketball are key activities conducted by us insidious men that help keep women out of the CS field?
Did no one actually *read* "Why are There so Few Female Computer Scientists?" She specifically refutes the possibility of any kind of conspiracy by men/society in general against girls. She cites several examples in which men whose behavior was pointed out to them immediately changed their attitudes and apologized.
And this is the problem. Blatant conspiracy, like racism, is something that can be fought. Subconscious attitudes are not. I'm always surprised at how many men on Slashdot are offended by this topic of conversation, as if they were being accused of "keeping women out" of computer science. As I, and probably most of the women here, can attest, this kind of sexism almost never comes from geeks. Every single male geek I know think it's wonderful that I know something about computers - anything at all.
I also don't see any real barriers to my attaining an IT career, if I wanted one (I'm only a hobby geek). Not now - now that I'm an adult and make decisions about my lifed based on careful planning and consideration of what I really want.
But back when I was in high school, I ran like hell from the geeks. Not the people themselves - they were great - but from being identified with them. I regularly set the curve in my AP Calc II class, and I hated myself for it. I stopped playing D&D. I stopped using computers. I made friends with the orchestra and drama geeks, because I felt accepted there. I told people I wanted to be a *housewife* when I grew up. It took years of college to overcome my own fears that if people thought I was too smart, no one would like me.
So that's why comments like this one always set my teeth on edge. Mention that our society has a lot of unhealthy stereotypes - held by women just as often as by men - and the conspiracy theorists come out of the woodwork. "Women whine that they can't get IT jobs because a fifth-grade teacher didn't call on them!" they complain.
All anyone is saying is that attitudes should change. Is that too much to ask?
But what I'd like to see someday is a site where news stories are put in, and the users actually vote on it (much like the moderators here).
It exists. Go to K5.
I often wonder if journalists should be allowed to write their own headlines instead of a copy editor slapping one on. Some of them might be as clever and inventive as you were this time.
I'm a copy editor, and trust me, you don't want to read reporters' headlines. You'd have newspapers full of "Committee agrees to discuss political issue at next meeting." If you see boring, information-free headlines like that one, you'll know that a copy editor just slapped a reporter's headline on his own story.
Back on topic, though, I really have to point out that what Katz is spouting this time is the same tripe I used to hear from journalism professors (not to mention freshman journalism students), and now occasionally from clueless corporate types from my newspaper. There are at least two kinds of people who are too smart to buy into this "new media will replace journalism!" crap, and those are serious journalists and serious geeks.
Serious journalists know that most of the internet's affect on news reporting is manner and timeliness, not content. Yes, journalists are having to adapt to a fast-paced 24-hour news schedule. But news is news. The internet won't kill journalism any more than it will kill books.
And, of course, serious geeks know better than to listen to Katz.