973 réponses à ce sujet

[tklivory]

I've already said previously that I despise the repetitive use of the word 'said', and I think Klidi nailed on the head *why*. It's *boring*. It's the rice cake of language, there only to be spiced up with an adverb, and even then it is *still* too bland for me on a regular basis. If I have a choice between using 'said', 'another-word-like-murmur' or nothing, I'll choose one of the latter two first...

Verbs should be action in written language because there is no visual or aural sensation to support it. The action-y verbs for talking (like: murmur, whisper, snark, etc) are better because you get an instant idea of the character's mood without overusing adverbs. Funnily enough, I don't have as big a problem with 'spoke/speak', even though technically it is no more action-y or descriptive than 'said'. *shrugs* Go figure...

--

@maxernst - I prefer third person limited for most of my stories. For some reason I tend not to like to read first person, so I tend not to write it. I think, though, that I have just not often found first person stories/novels where I 'get' the main character, and if I don't want to be the main character, I have trouble reading their story in first person. Weird, I'm sure, but part of that may be because when I read, I'm completely consumed by the reading of it, and that's hard to do for first-person for me because it's not... me.

Oddly, that difficulty doesn't come up for me in second-person writing. Heh.

[thesnowtigress]

"One Thousand White Women" by Jim Fergus is written in first-person journal style. It started off alright... then I just started hating the main character. And almost every other character to be honest - they were just, I don't know, all stereotypes. That is the only book I can think of in first person off the top of my head. I for one find it difficult to write in first person because I tend to screw up my tenses. But I wouldn't avoid a book or a story because of the POV, unless it was second person, I'm not really a fan of "you" also.

[maxernst]

AmbraAlhambra wrote...

tklivory wrote...
@maxernst - I prefer third person limited for most of my stories. For some reason I tend not to like to read first person, so I tend not to write it. I think, though, that I have just not often found first person stories/novels where I 'get' the main character, and if I don't want to be the main character, I have trouble reading their story in first person. Weird, I'm sure, but part of that may be because when I read, I'm completely consumed by the reading of it, and that's hard to do for first-person for me because it's not... me.

I second this. I'm not a fan of first person for entire books, but they can be quite useful when used sparingly for other purposes (and can be quite impactful when done that way), but I can't think of any books off the top of my head that really sucked me in that was written in 1st person.

Second person is... jaring to me. I have a hard time getting over the use of 'you.' Not something I'm really a fan of either, tbh.

I guess it's a matter of taste.  I can think of a number of writers (Margaret Atwood, Robertson Davies, Philip Roth, Barbara Kingsolver, David Sedaris, Peter S. Beagle, Fyodor Dostoevsky. Gene Wolfe, Roger Zelazny) who have written entire books that I like very much in the first person--some of them write almost exclusively in the first person, although they may have multiple first-person narrators.

Second person is unusual and often comes off as a bit experimental.  I can only think of two books that used it extensively:  Italo Calvino's If on w Winter's Night, A Traveler . and Iain Banks, A Song of Stone...I'm not sure if it counts or not.  It's arguably a first person narrative but it's addressed to "you" throughout and "you" are one of thc characters in the drama, so

One last thought--maybe it's a difference of perception of what the first person narrative means.  I don't see the expectation as the reader identifying with the protagonist at all.  The sense of it for me is that the protagonist is telling his story to the reader.  Though I do see your point that an unappealing first-person narrator can be a drawback to enjoying a work...for me Holden Caulfield in Catcher in the Rye is too annoying for words, but the book obviously has many fans.  I'm not convinced I'd like it any better in the third person, though.

Modifié par maxernst, 27 mars 2012 - 01:28 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Ehh. Sometimes people just say something and sound angry/thoughtful/sad/quiet/etc when they do so, and I have no qualms about connecting adverbs to 'said' once in a while. There is not always an action connected to words, nor should there be, and this can be especially the case if it's a quickfire argument where you want the dialogue to progress at a certain speed.

No one should overuse adverbs--or anything else for that matter, but a Tell is sometimes more effective than a show in both its simplicity and punch. As with many things, it's knowing how to use them.

Keep it balanced. YMMV, but I know that if I realise a writer is trying to rigidly adhere to certain rules (such as 'Never use "said"') then a story stops sounding natural, kicks me straight out of the immersion zone, and grates on my nerves all the way to the end.


(BTW, on the don't use dialogue rule, I tried re-reading The Sword of Shannara a year or so back and was astounded at how little dialogue there was. Less than 5%. But Terry Brooks scored a huge following from that book, so he must have done something right. (For the record, I ended up not being able to re-read it. XD ))

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 27 mars 2012 - 02:30 .

[tklivory]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

(BTW, on the don't use dialogue rule, I tried re-reading The Sword of Shannara a year or so back and was astounded at how little dialogue there was. Less than 5%. But Terry Brooks scored a huge following from that book, so he must have done something right. (For the record, I ended up not being able to re-read it. XD ))

My theory is that it is because it is a literal retelling of Lord of the Rings.  The similarities between the two are beyond coincidental.

That being said (oooo, look what word I used!), I had forgotten how little dialogue he uses in that book.  It's interesting to read it from a critical point of view and wonder if it would have gotten published in today's market as-is.

For some reason, this also reminds me of an interesting bit of advice I once got, and was wondering what y'all would think of it: always begin with a line of dialogue.  I don't follow this on a consistent basis, but I've seen it used by some other authors almost religiously.  Good advice?  Bad?  Meh?

[Corker]

tklivory wrote...
For some reason, this also reminds me of an interesting bit of advice I once got, and was wondering what y'all would think of it: always begin with a line of dialogue.  I don't follow this on a consistent basis, but I've seen it used by some other authors almost religiously.  Good advice?  Bad?  Meh?

I don't always, or even (at a quick sampling) mostly start this way, but I do it often.


“You know, if you have time, I could give you a few archery pointers.”  (One of the few times I've opened with game dialogue.)
"Do you think the author was really serious?" Merrill asked, bouncing slightly in her chair.
“Blasted grabby ignorant man,” Marian fumed, stalking to the edge of their encampment in the Deep Roads.
“Aren’t you two married yet?” Leliana teased the two elves fondly as she curled up on the settee.
"And these elves allow themselves to be herded together in this filth why, exactly?" Morrigan sniffed - not too loudly.
“Why can’t anyone ever leave one of these things on, I don’t know, their
mother’s mantelpiece or something?” Finn asked sourly.

I also seem to use a lot of short simple sentences: 

She always came to his room.
Bethany kept the scarf.
For so long, he had been afraid.
Father called it the Arlathven.

...maybe I'm hoping the reader will want more explanation, so they'll read onward?  XD

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

I frequently open with dialogue or short sentences too, but I don't like starting every chapter the same way. I know there've been a few times where I've looked back, noticed I opened with dialogue the previous couple of chapters, and so deliberately not done that with the current one.

But really, I'll start with anything I think sounds good and gets me writing more. It's often as much a springboard for me as a hook for the reader.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 27 mars 2012 - 09:42 .

[Klidi]

maxernst wrote...
One last thought--maybe it's a difference of perception of what the first person narrative means.  I don't see the expectation as the reader identifying with the protagonist at all.  The sense of it for me is that the protagonist is telling his story to the reader.  Though I do see your point that an unappealing first-person narrator can be a drawback to enjoying a work...for me Holden Caulfield in Catcher in the Rye is too annoying for words, but the book obviously has many fans.  I'm not convinced I'd like it any better in the third person, though.

I can't stand Holden either!

I don't identify with the narrator, neither in first or in third person. Especially with third limited, when it's some character's POV - if the character has a distinctive personality and voice, it's just as impossible for me as with the first person. I am absorbed, but I'm more a silent observer, similar as in movie. Last week I discovered P.G. Wodehouse - thanks to praise by Douglas Adams on the cover.  Bertie Wooster, who tells the story in the first person is one of the funniest characters I've read about.

But I think that writing the first person is more difficult to write, it's more difficult to make the reader interested in the character.

@ Ambra, nice examples of showing.  It's true that everyone loses nerves and gets really mad sometimes... but it's rare. Most people - unless drunk or drugged, or it's a big crisis - are aware of consequences - if they dent the wall, they will have to pay it. That's another thing that I miss with the drama queens in stories. No matter how many walls they dent and how many books they destroy by throwing them around, everyone is always understanding and friendly and they never feel any consequences. Boring and annoying.

@ Tklivory, I found a nice article about openings - 12 Ways to Open Your Novel - with explanations, examples, and the year when the book with each example was published.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Klidi wrote...

That's another thing that I miss with the drama queens in stories. No matter how many walls they dent and how many books they destroy by throwing them around, everyone is always understanding and friendly and they never feel any consequences. Boring and annoying.

For some reason that just reminded me of when I was working on NPC dialogue, along with several others, for a mod many years back. Our editor got us all together and pointed out that so many characters appeared to 'spit' as an aside to speaking about a subject they found distasteful, that it was a wonder there weren't little puddles of spittle dotted all across the world.

As a result, I only had one NPC spit once...and he promptly looked embarrassed, got out a kerchief and polished the floor. He was even coded so he'd never spit a second time.

[Corker]

maxernst wrote...

One last thought--maybe it's a difference of perception of what the first person narrative means.  I don't see the expectation as the reader identifying with the protagonist at all.  The sense of it for me is that the protagonist is telling his story to the reader. 

This is my understanding also.  My favorite two first-person narrators are Steven Brust's Vlad Taltos, and George MacDonald Fraiser's Flashman.  Flashman, at least, is explicitly communicating the true and unvarnished story of his life to the reader; you're not supposed to imagine that you are Flashman. 

*shudder* Good thing, too.

[Firky]

Hi writers.

Have been vaguelly reading along but not posting much. @SoL What a great spitting story. And it makes your character much more intriguing.

@Klidi Great link.

Here is something I was reading tonight about motivations and finding a more authentic motivation for characters, I guess. Despite it being religious based, it's insightful and useful for general characterisation, I think.

http://katieganshert...t=Google Reader

Featuring this quote, "Usually, what we call ‘the desire of my heart’ is really a secondary
desire orbiting around the true desire. Usually, what we think we desire
is really the way we have imagined the true desire will be met.”

I'm trying to write some dialogue for a mini DA mod (taking forever) which is neither about romance, nor faith/religion - despite that site. It's hard to explain concisely, but one character is a desire demon acting the part of a dying mage in a play. So, you the player are interacting with the demon, and you're also in the play, although possibly not willingly. Lots of question are raised in my mind by this. Any ideas?

The two characters in question here are the demon and the player - and their motivations.

1. Why are (according to wiki and codex) desire demons "ambitious" do you reckon?
2. Beyond feeding on your desire, what could a desire demon possibly want itsself?
3. Within the structure of Origins-style player dialogue, how could the demon extract some of what the player desires?
Or, I guess, how can the player be set up to really want something?

(On 3 - it is a murder mystery, so the player "should" want to solve it, and they should want to solve it for the benefit of saving a friend, ultimately. But, with players being diverse as they are, how could these goals be well illustrated, I wonder.)

Any ideas gratefully received. Sorry long post. Thinking aloud, too.

Firky

[Corker]

Firky wrote...


1. Why are (according to wiki and codex) desire demons "ambitious" do you reckon?
2. Beyond feeding on your desire, what could a desire demon possibly want itsself?
3. Within the structure of Origins-style player dialogue, how could the demon extract some of what the player desires?
Or, I guess, how can the player be set up to really want something?

(On 3 - it is a murder mystery, so the player "should" want to solve it, and they should want to solve it for the benefit of saving a friend, ultimately. But, with players being diverse as they are, how could these goals be well illustrated, I wonder.)

1) My 'real' answer is that it's meta.  They needed some demons to be the smart, canny ones, and someone liked the dialogue/story opportunities that came with examining wants and desires.

In-world... meh. There's continual confusion over whether demons *elicit* the vice they represent, *embody* it, or both.  I'm pretty sure it explicitly says somewhere that sloth demons aren't necessarily lazy, they just make people ignore festering problems in the hopes that someone else will take care of it.  Yet... the first sloth demon you can meet (in the Mage Origin) is presented as sleepy and slothful. 

If you take the path that they embody their vice, then desire demons are ambitious because they're motivated to seek out what they desire.  (If they desired things but didn't pursue them, then they'd be... slothful?)

If they're not necessarily burning with desire 24/7, then...  They seem to have an innate curiosity about the mortal world.  They're certainly attuned to desires in some way, and the desires of Fade spirits seem to be... simple.  Justice desires justice.  Valor wants to see valorous deeds done.  It must get really boring.  Mortals are complicated!  Interesting!  There's what they want, what they think they want, what they feel obligated to want; things they want that would keep them from having other things they want and all the ways they try and get around that!  It's a desire-a-palooza out in the mortal world, and if my entire being were tuned to feed on that, I'd be ambitious to find my way to get there, too.

2.  Kitty claims to be curious about the world, to want to experience it as a mortal.  Why not? The grass is always greener on the other side of the Veil, right?

Perhaps it could want to experience a desire of its own, besides desiring desire?  They don't seem to have preferences of their own, much: if you desire knowledge or power or hot hot demon lovin', they're equally glad to oblige.  What if one wanted to know, really know instead of hovering on the shadows of experience, what it was to (insert a kind of desire here)?  "Love" is the sort of obvious one, but it could be anything.  A burning desire to be *the* fashion trend-setter in the Imperial Orlesian court?

3.  The player, or the player character?  *reads on*  Player character, I think.  

Well, Origins flat-out asks, if you bargain with Connor's demon in the Fade.  Power (Blood magic spec), Influence (+20 approval from one companion), pleasure (kiss and fade to black with demon), knowledge (+1 talent/spell), nothing.

I can see some trouble with the play framing device, though.  Someone might pick an answer based on what they think they should say as their lines in the play, then be surprised when the demon treats that as what they really want.  Personally, I don't see a problem with that - demons are shown to get it wrong in the game, sometimes, too.

I saw a Gaider quote a while back about possession and consent, which wasn't *very* clear but implied that people can be sort of tricked into possession (which... kind of confuses me, metaphysically, but if them's the rules...).  So I wonder if agreeing to something that the "dying mage" says could count as agreeing to the demon's offer?  Another possible layer of trickery...

[maxernst]

Desire demons seem to be the only ones whose motivations are complicated. It may be because they are a hybrid of the desires of their host and themselves. They seek to gratify the desires of their host (or are compelled to by having made a deal), but they also as Corker notes seem to have a desire to experience the world. Kitty and Sofia Dryden both expressed the desire to experience the world.

[Maria13]

Perhaps what desire demons desire is to experience a whole range of desires... Perhaps they don't know that average human desires are pretty limited (love, sex, riches, power...) and they imagine that there are some more exotic desires out there that they are wholly unfamiliar with... Could be they're right, could be they're wrong...

[Maria13]

Corker wrote...

I saw a Gaider quote a while back about possession and consent, which wasn't *very* clear but implied that people can be sort of tricked into possession (which... kind of confuses me, metaphysically, but if them's the rules...).  So I wonder if agreeing to something that the "dying mage" says could count as agreeing to the demon's offer?  Another possible layer of trickery...

I recall a whole episode of the X-Files, one of the later ones which involved Mulder framing a wish to a genie which left no scope whatsoever for misinterpretation... It was pretty rum...

[Raonar]

Maria13 wrote...

Perhaps what desire demons desire is to experience a whole range of desires... Perhaps they don't know that average human desires are pretty limited (love, sex, riches, power...) and they imagine that there are some more exotic desires out there that they are wholly unfamiliar with... Could be they're right, could be they're wrong...

Even though i am not legally a member of this thread, I can't help but write that I think your view on desire is erroneous. Human desire is not limited. Sure you can use those few words to "capture" them, but there are many, many variations to what each person considers "love", "riches: and "power".

Ultimately, desire=craving for pleasure. And people derive pleasure form anything their psyche feels like.

Long story short, humans can desire absolutely ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. In other words, human desires can be unlimited in their nature/scope, and very intense,

What I SUSPECT is at work here is that spirits and demons, going by lore, have no imagination (they only imitate what dreamers think of, hence the fade's.... nature). As such, since humans cand desire whatever their imagination feels like, desire demons always have something more to crave for.

EDIT

On this note, Desire Demons may be in search of the "Anything": They get lost in one or a few cravings at a time, while pride Demons are "Everything" types= they share the view (flawed though it is) that power can bring them everything, and they do want everything and everyone as slave(s).

Really, ALL demons are, ultimately, desire demons. Whoever in Thedas classified them had vocabulary issues.

Modifié par Raonar, 27 mars 2012 - 03:27 .

[Maria13]

Humans are limited, ergo our desires must be limited.

Modifié par Maria13, 27 mars 2012 - 05:26 .

[Raonar]

Humans may be "limited" but our imagination is not, so I disagree with you. The possibilities of expressing/forming desire is unlimited, especially when you look at humanity as a whole (which desire demons probably do). Imagination is all that demons really need.\\

EDIT

What I mean is that you are missing the point. Humans are only "limited" in what they can achieve, not in what they want/crave/imagine. That's the point really. They have the ideas/urges and the desire demons offer the power to make it happen (or make it seem like it happened, since they cast illusions to make people think so more than half the time).

Modifié par Raonar, 27 mars 2012 - 05:34 .

[Rinshikai]

[quote]Raonar wrote...

Humans may be "limited" but our imagination is not, so I disagree with you. The possibilities of expressing/forming desire is unlimited, especially when you look at humanity as a whole (which desire demons probably do). Imagination is all that demons really need.
[/quote]

[quote]

thats a good point

[quote]

[Maria13]

I'm sorry but I disagree... Our imaginations may be compendious (to us anyway) but I still think they're limited, if only by death and physical decay.

[Raonar]

Maria13 wrote...

I'm sorry but I disagree... Our imaginations may be compendious (to us anyway) but I still think they're limited, if only by death and physical decay.

We'll agree to disagree on this then, but you HAVE to admit the imagination of mankind as a whole is unlimited. We have kids all the time for stone's sake . Always something more is added, especially once some new discovery or invention crops up.

Modifié par Raonar, 27 mars 2012 - 06:45 .

[Klidi]

Desire and imagination are two different things.
There are many different views on desire - psychological, philosophical (with different philosophers having different take on it), even marketing.
Here also - as with most other things - there is no single correct view or opinion. You may have your own philosophy about desire, but that doesn't mean that the others 'have to' accept it.
For all we know, desire demons may have very business-like view on human desires. In which case it would be limited.

[Corker]

Isn't a good chunk of HP Lovecraft's horror predicated on the idea that there are certain cosmic truths our minds cannot imagine or comprehend? That, when we're faced with them anyway, drive us to madness?

(I mean, you can disagree that such things exist. Just sayin', Maria13 isn't the only one to suggest that our imaginative capability is bounded.)