Well, the criminal law exam is over. I think it went well enough, although I can always think of a few things I should have included. Perhaps those few things were vital, but they probably weren't.
The work on the novel proceeds. Still haven't got past plotting and outlining - I worry that I'm trapped in minutiae, but I also worry that, if I don't take care of establishing certain ground rules, the novel will be full of gaping plot holes and inconsistencies. So many novels are, these days. I have that scientific sort of mind that wants to ask authors vastly annoying questions like "So.....how do you explain thermoregulation in the undead?" Much of the time, novelists gloss over these issues - they probably never thought these issues needed explanation. Perhaps they think their audience is too stupid or uneducated to understand what thermoregulation is? I'm not entirely happy with that answer. Perhaps many authors don't know what thermoregulation is themselves? I can understand the "avoid the topic" mentality for highly problematic issues, but basic biology and physiology should be at least consistent, if not entirely scientific. I always thought it was fun to figure out how magical systems in fantasy novels work, but it disappoints me so when something totally new and off the wall is thrown in without explanation. That's no fun - what's the point of having a system you violate whenever it is slightly inconvenient or you're not feeling very creative. Laziness.
Then again, going to the opposite extreme is pretty dull, too. I find myself getting bored when reading complicated pseudo-science explanations, or is that justifications, of how warp drives work or how transposons will cause humans to mutate into another species. Pedantic.
I believe the happy medium is, as usual, the best solution. One should have a logical, well-thought out basis for the mythos, physiology, etc. of your universe/planet/species/monster/whatever, but not share it with the reader ad nauseum until s/he regrets having the ability for rational thought. Share just enough to give the reader hints so they can figure it out, if they want to. If they don't care, you'll just be boring them with the tedious details. By consistently following the scheme you develop and dropping the appropriate hints, the story's system will be "logical" even if it is scientifically improbable. Then again, it is possibly a waste of time. Most of best-selling novels have plot holes the size of Texas...plot and characterization have been reduced to tools used to move the action along when it lags.
I also worry that I haven't really had a chance to do much creative writing since grade school. I was good at it then...but I wonder if I'll be continually slipping back into essay style, which now predominates the majority of my literary output. Not good for dialogue, essay style. Getting some practice writing freely is part of the logic behind keeping this journal. As you probably see, I'm reasonably good at flow-of-consciousness writing, but that's even worse. Have you ever read any Beckett or Joyce? Ugh! You'll never catch *me* waiting for Godot, thank you very much. My biggest challenge so far has been abandoning formal essay yet keeping to a structured plan. A writer of extremes, that's me - either all organization, or none whatsoever. Let's see, I have an idea. I'm good at writing about me, I think my next experiment will be to internalize all characters and write about them as if they were me. Well, I'm off to try this grand experiment. More later.
The work on the novel proceeds. Still haven't got past plotting and outlining - I worry that I'm trapped in minutiae, but I also worry that, if I don't take care of establishing certain ground rules, the novel will be full of gaping plot holes and inconsistencies. So many novels are, these days. I have that scientific sort of mind that wants to ask authors vastly annoying questions like "So.....how do you explain thermoregulation in the undead?" Much of the time, novelists gloss over these issues - they probably never thought these issues needed explanation. Perhaps they think their audience is too stupid or uneducated to understand what thermoregulation is? I'm not entirely happy with that answer. Perhaps many authors don't know what thermoregulation is themselves? I can understand the "avoid the topic" mentality for highly problematic issues, but basic biology and physiology should be at least consistent, if not entirely scientific. I always thought it was fun to figure out how magical systems in fantasy novels work, but it disappoints me so when something totally new and off the wall is thrown in without explanation. That's no fun - what's the point of having a system you violate whenever it is slightly inconvenient or you're not feeling very creative. Laziness.
Then again, going to the opposite extreme is pretty dull, too. I find myself getting bored when reading complicated pseudo-science explanations, or is that justifications, of how warp drives work or how transposons will cause humans to mutate into another species. Pedantic.
I believe the happy medium is, as usual, the best solution. One should have a logical, well-thought out basis for the mythos, physiology, etc. of your universe/planet/species/monster/whatever, but not share it with the reader ad nauseum until s/he regrets having the ability for rational thought. Share just enough to give the reader hints so they can figure it out, if they want to. If they don't care, you'll just be boring them with the tedious details. By consistently following the scheme you develop and dropping the appropriate hints, the story's system will be "logical" even if it is scientifically improbable. Then again, it is possibly a waste of time. Most of best-selling novels have plot holes the size of Texas...plot and characterization have been reduced to tools used to move the action along when it lags.
I also worry that I haven't really had a chance to do much creative writing since grade school. I was good at it then...but I wonder if I'll be continually slipping back into essay style, which now predominates the majority of my literary output. Not good for dialogue, essay style. Getting some practice writing freely is part of the logic behind keeping this journal. As you probably see, I'm reasonably good at flow-of-consciousness writing, but that's even worse. Have you ever read any Beckett or Joyce? Ugh! You'll never catch *me* waiting for Godot, thank you very much. My biggest challenge so far has been abandoning formal essay yet keeping to a structured plan. A writer of extremes, that's me - either all organization, or none whatsoever. Let's see, I have an idea. I'm good at writing about me, I think my next experiment will be to internalize all characters and write about them as if they were me. Well, I'm off to try this grand experiment. More later.
posted by Deborah | 5:45:00 PM
