Oct 302005
 

There've been some (more!) interesting writing-related posts over the last couple of days:

  • John Schoffstall talks about the rules of engagement, as put forth by Cheryl Klein
  • Max Barry talks about the block, and finishing a novel:
    Getting [the editor and writer] roles mixed up is a disaster. You don’t want a dose of cold, hard reality while you’re writing. No, no: delusion is your friend. Embrace the delusion. Save the critical analysis for later.

  • Jo Walton on chapters:
    Chapters are part of making flow actually flow. They have to end at points that feel like the end of a chapter. One of the things they do is provide a breath, sometimes a good long breath, and sometimes a pant, hardly a breath at all, but a breath still. Every chapter is a new beginning, pacing wise, even if it's starting with an answer to the question asked at the end of the last chapter in the same dialogue.

    Chapters are something I struggle with, although "struggle" seems far too active a verb for a process that is essentially me shrugging and thinking, meh, that'll do. This is part of the "that feels right" approach, of course. At the moment I think in scenes rather than chapters, because scenes feel more complete and chapters feel a little more arbitrary. (This is probably because I have taken the time to stop and think about structuring a scene. I have not been so diligent with my chapters. Yet. Another item for the Contemplating List.) I do remember a post on the mailing list, lo these many years ago, about structuring both scenes and chapters as fractals of the novel's larger structure… h'm. I'm going to have to search the hard-drive for that one.

 Posted by at 11:29 am
Oct 272005
 

New Scientist has a run of articles up about creativity. Most of the articles are only snippets, and you need to be registered to view the full article. (Which I am not, so I can't comment on the subscriber-only portion of the articles.)

The articles are spread between scientific and artistic creativity, interviewing mathematicians and songwriters, for example. There's also another article which asserts that the moment of inspiration is the same whether you're an artist or a scientist. Am I the only one frustrated by this? I have been battering my head against the "art vs science" wall pretty much most of my adult life, fighting pre-conceived notions that — apparently — you have to be one or the other. When the truth is that there is no great divide between art and science, that to be a good scientist you must be creative as well as methodical, and to be a good artist you must be methodical as well as creative. In both fields, you need to be open-minded and thinking on the edge as well as acknowledging what has gone before.

Okay. So the art/science dichotomy will always get a rise out of me. For all that, the study of creativity is an interesting one, and I'm disappointed that New Scientist didn't provide the full articles. I especially would like to see the rest of Margaret Atwood's tip on creativity.

One article that is provided in full is about creativity hotspots: the evidence that, despite the emergence of a global economy, scientific and technological creativity are more geographically concentrated then ever.

…talent does not just flow between countries. More precisely, it locates in communities, regions and cities. This has been the case for centuries: from Athens to New York, cities have long served as crucibles of invention. This is driven by a key social and economic force: when talented people come together, their collective creativity is not just additive; rather, their interactions multiply and enhance their individual productivity.

 Posted by at 3:33 pm
Oct 252005
 

Last night, some time in the wee hours and therefore probably legitimately this morning, I finished the wind story. Just in time, because it's due in, oh, a little under a week. So it only has a few days to sit before the final polishing tweak. To celebrate this wondrous achievement, I chose to spend today catching up on some other tasks which have been piling up, wanting attention. One of these is a skills audit and career research task. If you go to JobSearch's Career Quiz, you too can take the quiz and find out your career aptitudes.

My results?

  • Practical: 0
  • Technical: 5
  • Creative: 7
  • Administrative: 3
  • People: 0
  • Helping: 0

Okay, so those of you who've spent time with me will possibly be surprised that I managed to break to an even zero on some areas instead of scoring negative marks. But we'll put that down to a failing in the way the quiz was put together, shall we? What amuses me is that you can score zero for a category but the graph will still valiantly attempt to plot this. As if it really can't believe I have (allegedly) no aptitude for people or helping.

Once you have your results, you can click through to discover a list of careers, and information and a list of vacancies for said careers. Of course, clicking "creative" delivers up the option of getting a job as an author. Apparently it pays $1,000 a week. Strangely, there's no vacancies for authors at the moment. Go figure, huh?

 Posted by at 4:02 pm
Oct 232005
 

Clarion South 2007 (which now runs biennially, so there's no CS 2006) has announced its line-up of tutors. Now, I know I'm biased and all, but I don't think you could beat the 2005 line-up (don't believe me? one of my tutors posts pictures of cats and bathroom tiles. What more could you want from a tutor? Really?)

Still. Gardner Dozois. Kelly Link. Can you repeat Clarion? Can you? Can you? Please?

In other news, Neil Gaiman notes something of the Australian psyche:

I definitely got the sense when I was out there last time that Australia was a bit behind the US and the UK in its understanding and acceptance of fantasy (despite having several of the best fantasists and fabulists currently writing out there)

Continue reading »

 Posted by at 12:06 pm
Oct 232005
 

Bleh. My brain is not yet co-operating this morning. Or even functioning, unless piecemeal and incoherent can be counted as functioning.

So, out of town for a day or so, and again the blogosphere trots out the wisdom. (I'm sensing a pattern here.) New entries to the memories page:

 Posted by at 10:29 am
Oct 182005
 

I have decided I officially suck at transitions. Anne Mok, one of my clarion classmates, had a real touch for them, those throwaway sentences which move the characters from the car to the bar without sounding clunky or crowded with unnecessary detail. Sadly, the only stuff of hers online (that I know of) is at AntiSF, which would only be 500 words and so probably not many opportunities for transitions. You'll just have to take my word for it.

I don't tend to think in complete scenes so much as in fragments (hello scattershot draft!), and over the years I've indulged a very bad habit: need a transition? A scene break will do. Eep. Today, in editing a story, I realised I'd gotten so desperate for a transition I had actually knocked one of my characters unconscious. Okay, so yes, it's a logical thing to happen in the story, but that probably has more to do with luck than good planning ;)

I have a theory (which is possibly more wishful thinking), that by the time I notice I'm not doing something right, it means I've been working on it in the backbrain for a little while. The backbrain is coy, and likes to try and perfect skills without my being aware it's doing anything more than concentrating on suggesting up cravings. Let's hope the theory's right, and I'm halfway to figuring out the way I want to perfect this tricksy tricksy issue.

In the meantime, what do you do for transitions? Does it come naturally, or was there a time you thought it through, and watched (read) what others did? Do you cheat the way I like to, and fade to black? Are you one of the lucky writers who thinks in complete scenes?

 Posted by at 6:20 pm

open source filmmaking

 journal  Comments Off
Oct 172005
 

Hugh McLeod talks about a chance to be involved in open source filmmaking: David MacKenzie (of "Young Adam" fame), has provided his script online at Hugh's blog, and is inviting feedback. The script is for his upcoming "Hallam Foe", and the idea is to get comments and useful criticisms before the money has been spent and the film is in the can.

What an interesting idea!

 Posted by at 8:27 am

thingummy

 journal  Comments Off
Oct 162005
 

New Scientist has an article up on how new words are invented:

It's a process that happens each time a new thing needs a name, but language researchers have struggled to model how it happens without a central decision maker. Now a computer model shows the process at work – and may give insights into how the first human languages emerged.

Which (it strikes me idly, and I'm not pausing to consider it in any real depth) may partly explain why SpecFic turns up noses. Reams of newly-named bits and bobs, all named by a committee of one, the author. The model is lopsided and limping.

 Posted by at 6:17 pm
Oct 152005
 

To all aspiring dentists:

Please, take a moment and consider your hands. More specifically, their size. Do words like small, delicate, fine-boned, etc. come to mind? No? Well, then. Please be aware that if you attempt to stick both your hands and several instruments and your nurse's hands into your patient's mouth, you may, in point of fact, dislocate your patient's jaw. And no, being numbed up doesn't really help with that.

That is all.

 Posted by at 10:42 am