9962 réponses à ce sujet

[Drussius]

^ I remember that now. I'd forgotten she was moving to another country. That's got to be rough, so I definitely wish her all the best.

I did use WebMD for my research into the treatment of a certain type of injury, but I had to fill in a bunch of details on my own. If I get around to publishing it and can't run it by anyone who knows better, I'll just leave it as is. I think it's okay for now, as long as I didn't choose a malady that would definitely have killed the patient long before treatment was administered.

But I suppose the benefit is that anyone without medical knowledge probably wouldn't know any better than I do!

[Spiritwolf1]

hot_heart wrote...

No, you're right, Drussius. Being a writer is trusting your instincts. Everyone has a distinctive 'voice' and it's really down to whether that connects with an audience. Forcing yourself to adapt to certain whims can be tricky or even disastrous.

Rather than look at numbers, I think it's better to look at the actual feedback. If you're spending a lot of time getting to know the characters and you're hearing that people like them, then go with it. People may eventually say 'just get on with it' anyway.

If anything, use it to hone your craft and 'voice' rather than wish fulfilment for your audience.

I would measure your story on your enjoyment. I mean I have a good number of visitors and hit but everyone seems to think they are unimportant, but they do encourage me... If I looked to reviews then I would figure other then a few people no one liked my story at all and that I should just give up, so I would rather stick with the postives. In the end its whatever you want it to mean and in the end it needs to be the story you wanted to tell cause really it is your story your telling,.

Modifié par Spiritwolf1, 09 août 2012 - 06:26 .

[Icyflare]

Drussius wrote...

In the end, I have always believed that writing is more about telling the story you want to tell rather than the one you think the readers want to hear, as selfish as that sounds. Maybe I'm way off base on that. I'm just too hung up on staring at that little "visitors" number on FF.net, and wondering if I'm going to start seeing that number decline. I swear, that little number is the bane of my confidence.

But I appreciate the encouragement. I'm having too much fun with the characters to let my worries derail my exploration.

As much as the visitors' and views bars are delightful when they're high, the system baffles me and can be misleading at its worst. I really wouldn't worry about visitors, views, or reviews if they'll distract from the story in your head.

Writing to tell your story sounds fine to me, especially if you're working on an alternatve interpretation of characters or events. However, I'm always getting tangled up in the technical difficulties of improving the way I tell my story (different writing styles, attention to perspective and superfluous details, etc). I don't think readers will mind how a story unfolds if it maintains its narrative integrity and respects its own established rules. I was just talking to a friend and using Dragon Ball Z as an example of a story who shreds ups its story lore and makes up a new one every season. First, they can destroy planets in one season and now they're only slapping around mountains two seasons later even though they''re stronger? What?

Modifié par Icyflare, 09 août 2012 - 09:37 .

[hot_heart]

And, actually, if you want really good advice and feedback on even the most minor thing, there are plenty of wonderful people in this very thread.

[Icyflare]

hot_heart wrote...

No, you're right, Drussius. Being a writer is trusting your instincts. Everyone has a distinctive 'voice' and it's really down to whether that connects with an audience. Forcing yourself to adapt to certain whims can be tricky or even disastrous.

Rather than look at numbers, I think it's better to look at the actual feedback. If you're spending a lot of time getting to know the characters and you're hearing that people like them, then go with it. People may eventually say 'just get on with it' anyway.

If anything, use it to hone your craft and 'voice' rather than wish fulfilment for your audience.

Is a writer's voice what they call it? I've trying to identify what this instinct is that tells me what works and what doesn't. But yeah. I wouldn't advising ignoring your instincts. That usually turns out badly, in my experience.

If you're really unsure of how your chapter will read to people, maybe you can run it by someone you trust to be objective and honest with their comments.

You can always use the reviews to figure out which part of your writing connects with the readers and maintain that or improve it. However, I never know what to do with a review that's positive but rather vague: "This story is hysterical. Please write more."

So, I guess I should keep it hysterical...and write more o_O;

Modifié par Icyflare, 09 août 2012 - 10:10 .

[Spiritwolf1]

hot_heart wrote...

And, actually, if you want really good advice and feedback on even the most minor thing, there are plenty of wonderful people in this very thread.

Yes there are and I thank them for the help I have gotten. Im usually not good at asking for it and they make it easy

[hot_heart]

Icyflare wrote...
Is a writer's voice what they call it? I've trying to identify what this instinct is that tells me what works and what.

In screenwriting circles it is. It's a vague term but it's sort of expressing who you are as a writer, or even an 'author' (in the loosest sense). If you think of famous writers or directors, for example, you could probably pick out their hallmarks and their ability to see how far they can push the boundaries. That comes with a lot of practice and just general experience.

'The industry' tends to look for people with what they call an 'original voice'. Some people find this comes naturally whereas others may have to work at it. Fortunately, there is room enough for both, if you look. And in literature, especially, you do get a lot more control over your work, thankfully.

[Icyflare]

^Screenwriters sound like they have it tough in regards to controlling their stories. It may be a misguided assumption on my part, but I always got the impression that one of the important traits of a good screenwriter for a television show is to be able to improvise on the fly. Things happen, like actors quitting or characters being received poorly by the audience, and it would be a very useful skill to accommodate these changes and still create a compelling story in a way that makes sense with the alterations.

Modifié par Icyflare, 09 août 2012 - 10:59 .

[hot_heart]

TV screenwriting is an odd beast. And I think America has a better grasp of it than the UK. Not to say the UK has it bad, because it does encourage some quite diverse creations. America just has 'more'.

With US TV, they're generally looking to get to five seasons (to reach syndication), so before the show even starts, they may be looking at ways to pad it out. Not that it's always padding, but there is that really drawn-out element to some relationships, especially romantic ones. The technical term being UST or Unresolved Sexual Tension (sometimes, URST, for some reason) whereby they keep Mulder and Scully/Ross and Rachel/Niles and Daphne/Chuck and Sarah apart for as long as possible, throwing numerous spanners into the works along the way.

Also, the production staff side of things is very different. The creator may be the 'show-runner' who handled the original pilot episode and oversees all the various elements but is not writing every episode (though you may find the rare case where that is true, in British TV moreso). Instead there will be a team of writers who discuss all the elements of the writing and will read and contribute to one another's scripts (though without official credit in those instances). I'd love to work on a production like that, as there's nothing more invigorating than having a team of people working together to create a great series.

Other times, especially for soaps or long-running crime dramas (Law & Order, for example), they will have a rotating pool of all sorts of writers, who will handle a script every now and then. It's more of a depersonalised, factory way of doing things, but there are jobbing writers who live like that. For soaps, there is a team of 'storyliners' who plot out the bigger picture and the writers will receive a story document telling them what needs to occur during that episode, meaning they just create the scenes and dialogue.

And one big difference between US and UK production is the schedule. The UK tend to produce a series (usually 6 episodes, sometimes up to 10 or 12) which is written and filmed all in one block. A lot of the time, it will be the product of one writer and it is 'their show' but other more recent programmes have borrowed the US model (Spooks, Doctor Who). Whereas in the US, there is that seasonal production where the ball is already rolling while episodes are being written and filmed. Sometimes, it can create problems, and others it can allow a bit of flexbility. I've heard how 24 wasn't planned past something like episode 10 in case it never got picked up, which is...interesting. And I believe the last season of The Wire got cut a little short, as the storylines resolve rather abruptly compared to before, which is a real shame.

Though I'm aware of some US programmes where they do plan everything to be exact beforehand and it is all filmed in one block. Like I said, US TV has 'more'

Sorry, may have gotten a bit carried away there...

Modifié par hot_heart, 09 août 2012 - 11:20 .

[Obsidian Gryphon]

 fluffywalrus noted that my story is heading towards the big bang so I'm starting to line up everything I've thrown down in my fanfic on paper. Things I just plucked out of my head before. It's fun, creating the background / reasons for events / people I've created. But I've to make sure I can tie up everything properly. 

I'm also kinda sad. A little. Because I can't bounce them off anybody.

Modifié par Obsidian Gryphon, 10 août 2012 - 12:56 .

[Icyflare]

hot_heart wrote...

TV screenwriting is an odd beast. And I think America has a better grasp of it than the UK. Not to say the UK has it bad, because it does encourage some quite diverse creations. America just has 'more'.

With US TV, they're generally looking to get to five seasons (to reach syndication), so before the show even starts, they may be looking at ways to pad it out. Not that it's always padding, but there is that really drawn-out element to some relationships, especially romantic ones. The technical term being UST or Unresolved Sexual Tension (sometimes, URST, for some reason) whereby they keep Mulder and Scully/Ross and Rachel/Niles and Daphne/Chuck and Sarah apart for as long as possible, throwing numerous spanners into the works along the way.

Also, the production staff side of things is very different. The creator may be the 'show-runner' who handled the original pilot episode and oversees all the various elements but is not writing every episode (though you may find the rare case where that is true, in British TV moreso). Instead there will be a team of writers who discuss all the elements of the writing and will read and contribute to one another's scripts (though without official credit in those instances). I'd love to work on a production like that, as there's nothing more invigorating than having a team of people working together to create a great series.

Other times, especially for soaps or long-running crime dramas (Law & Order, for example), they will have a rotating pool of all sorts of writers, who will handle a script every now and then. It's more of a depersonalised, factory way of doing things, but there are jobbing writers who live like that. For soaps, there is a team of 'storyliners' who plot out the bigger picture and the writers will receive a story document telling them what needs to occur during that episode, meaning they just create the scenes and dialogue.

And one big difference between US and UK production is the schedule. The UK tend to produce a series (usually 6 episodes, sometimes up to 10 or 12) which is written and filmed all in one block. A lot of the time, it will be the product of one writer and it is 'their show' but other more recent programmes have borrowed the US model (Spooks, Doctor Who). Whereas in the US, there is that seasonal production where the ball is already rolling while episodes are being written and filmed. Sometimes, it can create problems, and others it can allow a bit of flexbility. I've heard how 24 wasn't planned past something like episode 10 in case it never got picked up, which is...interesting. And I believe the last season of The Wire got cut a little short, as the storylines resolve rather abruptly compared to before, which is a real shame.

Though I'm aware of some US programmes where they do plan everything to be exact beforehand and it is all filmed in one block. Like I said, US TV has 'more'

Sorry, may have gotten a bit carried away there...

Not an issue. Actually, that explains a lot about some of the tv shows I watch. Especially why some episodes don't feel the same in tone from one to another.

Modifié par Icyflare, 10 août 2012 - 03:04 .

[Seracen]

An interesting discussion I was having with my friend earlier...

I was unable to decide whether I wanted the VS to be Kaidan or Ashley. As I didn't romance Ash for my Male Shep in my current story, that doesn't really factor into things.

As a soldier, I find Kaidan to be more well rounded than Ashley. As a character, I find him to be less abrasive. Although both VS get really annoying and preachy by ME2 and 3, Ash comes across as more whiny and xenophobic (although this is mutable).  Kaidan is more capable and less aggravating, so two points for him...

On the other hand...

Kaidan, I feel, has progressed fully as a character. He has resolved all the hangups in his life, everything has come full circle. He even states himself, that he is fully well-adjusted and content with how his life has turned out. Nothing in the subsequent story has him growing as a character.

Ashley, conversely, still has a lot of chips on her proverbial shoulder. There's her family history, her personal crusade for recognition, her overcoming of the aforementioned xenophobia, and all the attachments she still has lying around (little sisters, etc).

So, as much as I'd prefer to have Kaidan, from a logical point of view, I find that Ashley allows more meaty opportunities, from a writing point of view.

In short: Kaidan vs Ashley, in terms of character growth and room for further development...

Thoughts?

PS: I've already decided to go with Ashley in my story, although there is a severe testosterone deficiency on my story's Normandy currently

Modifié par Seracen, 10 août 2012 - 03:23 .

[fluffywalrus]

When I initially played the game, I chose to keep Ashley because (A) she was with the Salarians, ( she had a bit more potential at the time.

Now, looking back, I'd still likely choose Ashley, because while I don't hate Kaidan anymore (I talked to him like 3 times and he thought I loved him :\\, was kind of smarmy ), he's definitely lacking in progression. Ash is...a bit more complex, and her personal background is rather interesting. Not that Kaidan's Jump Zero one isn't, as I'm currently knee deep in a related plot arc in my fic, but as a character, he's rather vanilla. There's less one can do with him, but at the same time, he could be an anchor for the rest of the crew. He's stable.

But yeah, I tend to go Ashley.

[Seracen]

^^ My thoughts exactly, which is sad, because I feel that ME3 had more organic character development with Kaidan. Still, that's what I can do in my writing!

On that note...I finally got to the point of my story! After nearly 12 chapters of set up, exposition, and faux-action sequences (just to keep readers from falling asleep, hopefully), I'm finally getting to the meat of the story!

On to the missions that run my characters through the ringer!!! [laughs maniacally]

Seriously though, sometimes I feel like I HAVE to get through this stuff, so the good parts make more sense. And I'm not one of those people who can write disjointed chapters (scenes I can, if really vivid in my mind).

Without proper setup, the subsequent chapter would have no meaning, I just fear that it's literary wanking. This inevitably leads to severe edits.

(in reference to Drussius' post) On the other hand, I try never to fully delete my stuff, as it can reappear in later scenes. For instance, an epilogue scene from my ME3 fic made it's way into chapter 5 of my ME4 fic, albeit drastically modified.

PS: it never ceases to amaze me, how writing evolves on its own.  I can plan, I can create perfectly detailed flowcharts, and I can still be dumbfounded as to how a scene will progress.  Inevitably, something will change to "fit better" or something will come about unbidden and unplanned...and I feel my writing is better for it.

Still, it's strange to look back on such writing and ponder: where'd THAT come from?

Modifié par Seracen, 10 août 2012 - 06:02 .

[lillitheris]

No fewer than six people have recently asked why I chose Kaidan over Ashley for “Unity”…it seems Ash is really (really) popular especially in the FShep/Liara circle. I have broadly two reasons:

1. Kaidan’s the one I picked on the first playthrough. Ash is better to go with the salarians and, in the end, securing the bomb is more important.

2. I started the story with Kaidan in mind, but briefly thought about Ash. The male perspective is quite useful, though; especially then, I’d only really planned on having Garrus play a significant role. Now there’s also Vega and Reegar, but the fellas are still outnumbered by Shepard, Liara, Hannah, Kasumi, Jack, Miranda, and various side characters…

[Spiritwolf1]

I have to admit (Puts on my body armour and helmet) I really didn't like either Ashley or Kaiden. Thier distrust of Shepard always bothered me. I can see why they did, but it always bothered me. I don't know which one I like or dislike more. First off I wanted to slap Kaiden everytime he said you know, you know. I'm Canadian and you know is not said all that much, you know. I would have prefered maybe an Eh or a like or even him giving Canadian directions sort of like, go about ten minuted til you see that big old oak treee at the end of the street and then turn left until you see the petro gas station...

I couldn't stop comparing his voice to Casey Kasem. In his favour though he did drop the mistrust easier then Ashley. I also thought he would make a solid Spectre.

Ashley was brash and obnoxious to me. I work with people like her all the time, I certainly did not want to play with someone like her in my group. And ME2 god she was a real B.... And she continued it into ME3, at least Kaiden tried to be diplomatic about it. She had a lot of issues and I felt that she would be a horrible Spectre. She was not open minded and she was not good at seeing things outside of this little box she stood in.

I picked Ashley for my story cause she was my least favorite, of course, I never really expected her to play a larger role then someone sitting in a crowd, but like we have always said. Story take on their evolution. My whole story went on a cruise without me cause it was nothing like what I had orginally planned and I was looking for a chapter or two story, not what I have now.

Anyway again to all those out there, keep writing, I love reading.

Modifié par Spiritwolf1, 10 août 2012 - 07:39 .

[Icyflare]

When it comes to choosing either Kaidan or Ashley for a story, I usually just go with whoever will bring the most conflict and movement into it. Personally, I find that Ashley's personality had more texture in it than Kaidan, but there is a six year gap between them so that may partially explain why Kaidan feels more mature than Ashley.

Gameplay-wise, I usually picked Kaidan in my ME1 playthroughs, because, strategically, he was more useful to me than another soldier. On my official ported playthrough, I picked Ashley and regretted it in ME3 because Kaidan got my favourite skill from ME2: Reave. I also kind of miss him now that he's dead =/

The Spectre thing, I felt was more a political ploy on the Udina's part than something that was actually an honour for their work. Yes, they're both capable soldiers and have grown a lot since joining up with Shepard, but the timing seemed rather convenient, given the Shepard's earlier incarceration and the later attempted coup of the Citadel.

Modifié par Icyflare, 10 août 2012 - 11:48 .

[hot_heart]

It's quiet in here again. I guess it's North Americans keeping different hours?

Anyway, how do you guys treat the squad make-up on missions? As in, obviously, the game has Shepard and two squadmates for balance, but do you ignore that and just assume everyone goes along? I know you as writers may include reasons for characters being elsewhere, especially if you're doing original stories, but I'm just thinking things over for when I write the Sanctuary bit of the game. I may have to decide whether Kaidan or Ashley survived Virmire, after all (I'd kept it vague before).

Modifié par hot_heart, 10 août 2012 - 12:50 .

[survivor_686]

Thanks for the info pertaining to System's Alliance

[Ursakar]

hot_heart wrote...

It's quiet in here again. I guess it's North Americans keeping different hours?

Anyway, how do you guys treat the squad make-up on missions? As in, obviously, the game has Shepard and two squadmates for balance, but do you ignore that and just assume everyone goes along? I know you as writers may include reasons for characters being elsewhere, especially if you're doing original stories, but I'm just thinking things over for when I write the Sanctuary bit of the game. I may have to decide whether Kaidan or Ashley survived Virmire, after all (I'd kept it vague before).

Most of the time I take the whole team on missions. Except for those missions that require only a few people, like Kasumi's heist.

[Obsidian Gryphon]

hot_heart wrote...

It's quiet in here again. I guess it's North Americans keeping different hours?

Anyway, how do you guys treat the squad make-up on missions? As in, obviously, the game has Shepard and two squadmates for balance, but do you ignore that and just assume everyone goes along? I know you as writers may include reasons for characters being elsewhere, especially if you're doing original stories, but I'm just thinking things over for when I write the Sanctuary bit of the game. I may have to decide whether Kaidan or Ashley survived Virmire, after all (I'd kept it vague before).

It would depend on the type of mission. Three is usually for stealthy fast missions. More than that, you're gunning openly and would require more firepower and backups. But that's imo. 

On Kaiden and Ash. I don't really have a particular choice for either of them. In ME 1, Kaiden's sort of bland. Ash's interesting. After ME 2, I'm pissed with both of them.   Hence, I don't particularly care to rustle them up. But if I have to choose ... Kaiden, I guess.. He's bland, taken for granted but surprise, he could be otherwise.  

[Tairis Deamhan]

When dealing with a 'normal' mission (clear cut objectives, some knowledge of enemies, etc) I generally go with a squad size of 4 to 6 members. The 'three man team' might be good for game balance purposes but makes no tactical sense in the kind of firefights Shepard and Co get into.

Circumstances can of course dictate different numbers for one reason or the other. I'd generally say do what works best for the story and just try to keep a general logical undercurrent of why those members were chosen even if its not spelled out.

[Drussius]

hot_heart wrote...

It's quiet in here again. I guess it's North Americans keeping different hours?

Anyway, how do you guys treat the squad make-up on missions? As in, obviously, the game has Shepard and two squadmates for balance, but do you ignore that and just assume everyone goes along? I know you as writers may include reasons for characters being elsewhere, especially if you're doing original stories, but I'm just thinking things over for when I write the Sanctuary bit of the game. I may have to decide whether Kaidan or Ashley survived Virmire, after all (I'd kept it vague before).

I don't face this issue since my story is not about an actual military unit. However, basing my answer solely on the game and the hundreds of military/spy movies and shows I've seen, here are my thoughts:

The game limited you to three solely for gameplay purposes, but the idea of small, focused strike teams seems like a sound theory for when you need to be discreet, efficient, and avoid attracting undue attention. Show up with a group of 12 and you're likely to draw an armed response from the entire military force in a location. Show up with a group of 3 and you may get individual squads sent to deal with you, while others hold back to serve as backup.

However, if I were writing the story, I wouldn't hold to a hard number. I'd judge each mission on its own merits. Expecting heavy resistance? Split into two teams! Garrus and a backup could find high ground somewhere to cover the group with sniper fire while four or five in the main group head for the objective. Infiltrating a secure location? A smaller group, mostly comprised of tech specialists and close-quarters-combat fighters would probably work best.

Maybe three or four head into a destination while the rest of the squad serves as a distraction elsewhere? Maybe time is an issue and you need to split into two teams to search opposite ends of a complex so that it can be done quickly.

I guess in short, I understand why squads of three were the limit in the game. More than that, and it starts to get hectic, the programming is tougher, and it gets harder to properly balance the challenge of the encounters. In fiction, on the other hand, I would definitely approach it with a realistic eye toward the situation and the expectations for the mission at hand. You have X number of people. How best should you allocate those resources for the objective in question. If taking too many people is excessive and drives up the risk of exposure, then a small group makes sense. Sending a group of 3 into a military installation with a large garrison? Not so much...

[hot_heart]

Fortunately, with mine, I'd only really be offering Miranda's passing commentary. And I guess the logical undercurrent (nice term, Tairis!) for not everyone being present at that moment would pertain to others ensuring they have a clear exit since Reapers had attacked the place.

Think Garrus may be present because he is like a loyal guard dog.
I may open it up for reader suggstions...

Modifié par hot_heart, 10 août 2012 - 02:33 .

[lillitheris]

hot_heart wrote...

It's quiet in here again. I guess it's North Americans keeping different hours?

Anyway, how do you guys treat the squad make-up on missions?

What are these ‘missions’ you speak of?

As in, obviously, the game has Shepard and two squadmates for balance, but do you ignore that and just assume everyone goes along?

My headcanon is that for most missions, everyone comes along. In most cases, the main squad is also more than three people (usually two–three pairs), and whoever’s left running interference, supporting, diverting, or whatever.

Modifié par lillitheris, 10 août 2012 - 02:49 .