Welcome to my blog. Here I'll post small stuff, like questions that are too small or specific to be a poll, or musings on writing that aren't developed enough to warrant an article. Enjoy.
By Max H. | January 02, 2011 at 06:26 PM EST | No Comments
Exclamation points, em dashes, and italicization are all techniques used to emphasize sentences, phrases, and words. Applied correctly, they can work wonders for an otherwise dull and bland passage or exchange. However, if used too liberally, they can make the reader stumble and the story difficult to read, as well as making your work seem amateurish. This guide will explain the uses for each and when and when not to use them.
Exclamation Points/Marks!
Holy crap! Look out! Run away!
Anyone who's passed first grade knows the purpose of an exclamation point; it's to make things LOUD!
Exclamation points are best left out of prose (or used very sparingly) and kept locked in dialogue, thought still not used too often.
Do not use multiple exclamation points in a row. Using an exclamation point in conjunction with question marks is also not recommended.
Em—dashes
Em dashes are for several things, but the main purpose I'll talk about here is its use as a sort of "super comma" to preface an abrupt change in thought, when a period would be too strong and a comma too weak. It can also be used to enclose a tangent of thought in the same way that parentheses would be used.
He heard it again—the distinct sound of rustling branches, now painfully loud among the now-silent woods.
To add insult to injury—as if he hadn't been a big enough jerk already—I found a Valentine card from him in the mail. Dog poop would have been preferable.
Those are examples of the two aforementioned uses of the em dash.
Em dashes shouldn't be used too often, as the large amount of empty space in them can distract the reader.
In Microsoft Word and most other word processors, an em dash is created by tapping the hyphen key twice in a row.
Italicization
Italicization are used to add emphasis to a word or short phrase, typically within dialogue. It is an extremely helpful tool, as the identify of the italicized word (or lack thereof) can alter the meaning of a sentence and the intent of the speaker.
Sophie wrote the essay.
A simple statement.
Sophie wrote the essay.
The emphasis on "Sophie" indicates that the speaker is saying that Sophie, as opposed to someone else, wrote the essay.
Sophie wrote the essay.
The emphasis on "wrote" indicates the speaker is saying the Sophie wrote, as opposed to typed, the essay.
Sophie wrote the essay.
The emphasis on "essay" indicates the speaker is saying wrote the essay, as opposed to another piece of writing.
As with em dashes, don't italicize too many words.
OTHER M e a n s of EmPhAsIs
ALL CAPS: Generally not a good idea to use it at all, but if you must, use it only in dialogue, when a character is shouting.
MiXeD cApS: If you use this in any formal piece of writing, I'm pretty sure someone comes and shoots you.
Bold: Can be used like italics to emphasize words, but it generally not recommended, since it is more distracting to the eye. Keep boldface type in chapter names and titles.
Underline: Same as bold.
L e t t e r s p a c i n g: No.
No matter what method you are using, remember the number one rule of emphasis: If you emphasize everything, you emphasize nothing. Italicized words won't catch the reader's eye if every other word is treated such.
By Max H. | December 17, 2010 at 04:30 PM EST | No Comments
Adverbs are bad. No switching POV mid-chapter. Only use said. Do not begin your story with a prophecy. Don't describe characters via their reflection.
Those are examples of so-called "rules" on writing. Some I've read at other places, some are ones I live by. Some are both.
The idea that all writers must follow them is ludicrous.
Writing is an art, not a science. Sciences have rules. No dividing by zero. Always add acids to water, not the other way around. Do no harm. Arts, on the other hand, by their very natures, cannot have rules. They can only have guidelines and suggestions.
Now, some of these suggestions have a solid basis, and should be followed. Spending whole paragraphs describing trivial details of the scenery that have no significance to the plot or any character is a bad idea, as it bores readers. Having barren wastelands inhabited by nothing but large carnivores with no sign of what they eat makes no ecological sense and brings up questions of how the animals survive when there aren't adventuring parties traveling through. Making the "night elves" and "dark dragons" the evil ones is just plain racist.
Others, however, and these are the majority, are based on personal preferences, opinions, and (sometimes) grudges. Take advice with a grain of salt, including mine. One person can't possibly know everything that readers, agents, and editors want. One agent might record themselves setting fire to your manuscript and send you the video, while another might call you the next Shakespeare. People have wide-ranging opinions, and you can't please everyone.
By Max H. | November 14, 2010 at 07:20 PM EST | No Comments
Sometimes in fantasy, magic is a very rare thing, or so difficult to control, that it would only be used for extremely important tasks that would be impossible to complete using mundane means.
Other times, magic is more common, with a decent percentage of the people possessing some talent. Which brings me to my point.
If magic is common, it should be used for common purposes.
If each backwater village has one or two guys who can make trees march into battle, why don't they make weeds march out of their fields. That girl over there can manipulate earth with her mind; why isn't she building an irrigation ditch?
Think of a fantasy world's magic as like our world's technology. Our technology is everywhere, so we use it for just about everything; light, sanitation, communication, entertainment, pest control, security, the list is endless. And just as we have creative technological solutions for problems, you can have creative applications of magic. Maybe a rich noble hires mages to charm the windows of his mansion to become red-hot if someone touches them from the outside.
By Max H. | October 11, 2010 at 02:52 PM EDT | No Comments
The Way Nature Works, by John D. Beazley, is an absolutely amazing resource for a writer. It provides information on geography, geology, biology, botany, zoology, ecology, hydrology, climatology, and oceanography, that is both detailed and easy to understand. It is excellent for research purposes, and can give you some ideas about creating a world that stands apart. The sections on plants and animals can also come in handy for those looking to create their own species.
You can buy it used on Amazon for a decent price, or probably find it in a library.
By Max H. | September 28, 2010 at 04:32 PM EDT | No Comments
Have you ever heard of "the three-chapter rule"? Or the 50-page rule? Or the 100-page rule?
It's a code that some readers follow. If someone follows the three-chapter rule, it would mean that a book has to hook them by the third chapter, or else they stop reading. Even if it was the 100-chapter rule, people like this still have a point. Your reader doesn't know about the totally awesome middle and climax, and even if they do, they might decide it's not worth it if nothing happens in the first 50 pages. As a writer, you must think like a reader, which is one of the many reasons why "Read, read, read" is good advice. When you're reading a book, you expect to be hooked from the beginning, or at least interested, since a good book will have hints and foreshadowing in the beginning if there can't be heart-stopping action. Reading bad books also helps you identify pitfalls and things to avoid. Thank you, Paolini! Now I know that it’s a bad idea to spend whole paragraphs on minute, trivial details that have absolutely nothing to do with the plot and do absolutely nothing to show anything of the viewpoint characters!
This doesn't just apply to plots. Let's say that the people who have read your story from beginning to end agree that your main character is not a Mary Sue. Still, if it begins with your exceptionally beautiful, smart, brave, witty heroine brooding about her Tragic Past™ and mastering swordplay in a few days, then many readers will assume the worst, even if the rest of the story firmly plants some flaws in the character.
By Max H. | September 18, 2010 at 08:31 PM EDT | No Comments
From the results of the poll I had a while ago, I can tell that listening to music while writing is a subject of widely differing opinions. But let me tell you, I love it.
If you don't mind listening to music while writing, and you're writing fantasy, here are some bands I'd recommend:
Rhapsody of Fire (formerly called Rhapsody)
Blind Guardian
Falconer
Luca Turilli
These four are amazing to listen to while a high fantasy story is blossoming from your fingers. Songs in particular that I like are - Dargor, Shadowlord of the Black Mountain; Power of the Dragonflame; The Pride of the Tyrant; Rain of a Thousand Flames; Danza di fuoco e ghiacco; Crystal Moonlight, and On the Way to Ainor (Rhapsody of Fire); This Will Never End; Skalds & Shadows; Ride into Obsession; and Wheel of Time (Blind Guardian); For Life and Liberty; The Clarion Call; and Stand in Veneration (Falconer); The Ancient Forest of Elves; Legend of Steel; and Prince of the Starlight (Luca Turilli).
Stormwarrior
If you're writing fantasy with Norse-related themes, this is a must. I would especially recommend the songs - Heading Northe and Ragnaroek.
Kamelot
Nightwish
If you're dealing with darker and more macabre themes, these two bands will work nicely. I recommend - Ghost Opera and Up Through the Ashes (Kamelot); Planet Hell and Cadence of Her Last Breath (Nightwish).
By Max H. | September 10, 2010 at 08:48 PM EDT | No Comments
Too often in stories (especially fantasy) this problem crops up: protagonists that win only because they're stronger, either physically or in magic.
Most of the time the protagonists are sheltered teenagers and the antagonists are powerful kings or demons or whatever, so it makes no sense. But let's not get into that right now.
The point is, if your hero is stronger than your villain, then the story suffers, since a lot of the tension and drama disappears. It would be like if someone wrote a story about Superman going up against a completely normal human being.
However, if your hero and villain are evenly matched, or if the villain is stronger, there's more suspense and uncertainty. It can also lead to more interesting encounters between the two. What the hero lacks in strength, he must make up with creativity and ingenuity. In the hands of a creative writer (and what writer isn't creative?), the hero's strategy could be something no one saw coming, but only if the writer is willing to think outside the box.
Instead of flinging fireballs, how about swelling up their tongue so they can't breathe, or directing light away from their eyes so they can't see, and then just running up and stabbing them?
By Max H. | August 24, 2010 at 04:16 PM EDT | 1 comment
Fantasy authors seem to love creating dragons. Oftentimes, these dragons are huge, have enormous energy budgets (sometimes being warm-blooded), and have no natural enemies. And a fair amount of them are potentially immortal. Do you see the problem? No? Well it's nothing big, just the fact that they would completely devastate the ecosystem, killing everything they could catch (read: everything), and leaving a barren wasteland in their place. Then they would starve.
It would be plausible if the worlds had prey large enough to fight off or fast enough to escape a dragon (like in the age of the dinosaurs), but most of the time, the largest thing that a dragon could eat would be a cow, and that tends to get them in trouble.
Unless the deer and rabbits somehow can breed like bacteria, the dragons are going to eat them all, unless a good-hearted environmentalist (like Galbatorix) does the right thing and kills them all.
By Max H. | August 20, 2010 at 12:00 PM EDT | No Comments
Since a Mary Sue is a character that's perfect, with absolutely no flaws, the best thing to do to avoid one is to make a character incredibly flawed, right?
Well, that depends on how flawed you're making the guy. Consider these two characters.
Jason isn't booksmart, but he is intuitive and witty, though that wit can be interpreted as sarcasm and arrogance by some. He's nice though, and loyal to his friends and family, but can sometimes be overprotective and get jealous, even once beating up a guy who he thought was abusing a female friend of his.
That sounds like a good character, as long as the personality is shown and developed throughout the story. Now, look at this guy.
Travis is a psychopathic jerk who hits people because he feels like it and abuses animals. He swears at anyone to tries to start a conversation with him and is a malicious hacker who destroys people's websites and covers their facebook pages with hardcore porn.
Ugh. He's certainly flawed, but remember, your readers are supposed to like your characters! No one is going to like this Travis. While he may be more interesting than a Perfect-Special-Mary Sue, he’s still a jerk. Just as no one in real life is without flaws, no one is without good qualities. Heck, Adolf Hitler was for animal welfare.
By Max H. | August 12, 2010 at 07:08 PM EDT | No Comments
First off, sorry about that thing that popped up on this page earlier. I'd been tinkering with some options and I forgot to delete the thing afterwards. But that's not what you wanted to read about, is it?
As I said in my article about clichés, most of the time, any cliché can work with the right twists to it. The "single tear" cliché, however, is not one of them. Very common in fantasy, this cliché often involves someone holding a dying loved one in their arms or receiving news of a terrible event. Instead of crying, getting angry, or doing anything logical, they then proceed to cry "a single tear". Bonus points if:
- The tear lands on either the petals of a flower or the face, heart, or wounds of a loved one.
- The tear is described with meticulous detail, often to the exclusion of describing the character's suffering.
That is not at all realistic. If someone you loved were dying in your arms, would that just bring out one tear? NO. IT WOULD NOT.
Now, sometimes, bursting into tears would not be proper for the character's situation. Say your character is a princess at her father's coronation whose lover just brushed her off. She doesn't want to make a scene, but she can't leave. If that's the case, so be it. Just use something other than a "single tear". Maybe tears brim in her eyes and she fights to hold them back.
By Max H. | August 08, 2010 at 02:04 PM EDT | No Comments
What are your favorite characters from works of fiction, and why? They don't necessarily have to be from books if you have something else in mind. Feel free to use my little "template" below if you like.
Human: Non-Human: Villain: Hero: Gray Character:
Here's how I'd fill it out.
Human: Nico di Angelo, the son of Hades from the Percy Jackson series. One of the most interesting and enigmatic characters in the series, I would give my left eye to read a series all about him.
Non-Human: Basil, also known as Basilgarrad, the hero of the Merlin's Dragon trilogy by T. A. Barron. He spends the vast majority of the first book as a tiny flying lizard barely the size of a hummingbird, using only his wits and a rather non-standard magical ability to solve his problems.
Villain: Doomraga, also from the Merlin's Dragon trilogy. A giant leech who is the servant of the wicked spirit Rhita Gawr. Latches onto creatures that will take it closer to its final destination, where it sits, absorbing any negative feeling that its minions throughout Avalon send to it. Its minions (also leeches, though not as large) also can possess creatures and make them cause more misery.
Hero: Lee Scoresby, a Texan aeronaut from Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials. Easygoing, smart, good with a gun (though nonviolent). Plus, he owns a balloon. Enough said.
Gray Character: Camus the Sable, a Grustian knight in Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon. He saves Princess Nyna of Archanea from being executed, and would like nothing more to join her and Marth, but as a knight, he cannot bring himself to abandon his kingdom. Even though it is doomed, he fights to the end.
By Max H. | August 07, 2010 at 05:45 PM EDT | No Comments
As part of my two weeks at camp, I spent seven days and six nights in the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, a chain of 21 islands off of the Bayfield Peninsula in Wisconsin. The twelve others in the group (10 other campers and two adult supervisors) and I camped on three of the islands (Sand, Oak, and Stockton) and stopped at four others (York, Raspberry, Hermit, and Basswood). We kayaked approximately 41 miles. We camped, we ate, we played croquet (one of the counselors was an absolute god at that game), we picked berries (blueberries, raspberries, thimbleberries, and blackberries), we saw wildlife (frogs and toads, garter snakes, a snowshoe hare, and some slugs that had taken to hanging from branches on bungee cords of their own slime), and we got devoured by mosquitoes (208 bites on one fellow camper). All in all, fun. Some parts were hard, especially the second and last days, where we ran into fierce headwinds, and in the case of the former, wicked waves. No one tipped over, though some people got seasick, er... lakesick. Lake Superior was unnaturally warm, which made it okay when you got sprayed in the face coming down off a swell or plunged your paddle blade a bit too deep into the water and got water in your sleeve.
I think my favorite part was going through the sea caves on Sand Island. First we went through is our kayaks, which was cool, but then we landed on a nearby beach and went back through the caves, carried by nothing but life jackets and our own arms and legs, which was simply amazing. The sea kayaks we used are long boats, and you need a lot of room to paddle. We explored a long, dark passageway that went a bit too far back for comfort, swam through tiny holes in the sandstone, and saw lots of frogs hanging out on the rocks (I think that they somehow fell from the forest above).
By Max H. | August 07, 2010 at 05:33 PM EDT | 1 comment
Share a few of your pet peeves here. They don't necessarily have to be related to books or writing. Here are a couple of mine.
1. When "wrong password/username" messages don't tell you which one you got wrong. Is it Username I Use #1 and Password I Use #3, or the other way around? I don't know. It doesn't tell me.
2. Huge, bulky transformer boxes at the ends of cords for electronic devices.
By Max H. | July 23, 2010 at 10:04 AM EDT | 1 comment
What is your least favorite cliché (of any genre) and why?
Mine would have to be the fantasy genre's old mainstay of the hero mastering weaponry/magic in a matter of weeks or months. I'd rather see a hero who's bad at that stuff and has to be use brains and wit to solve their problems.