LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Character building through details

cantdog said:
You asked me directly what the passage said about her as a character. How effective was it as character exposition, to me. I didn't feel a need to weigh in for any other reason than your own invitation. I hope that lays the personalities to rest, but if there are some people you do not invite in, kindly list me next time.

I was reading an almost fetishistic description of a piece of protective gear. It is nonstandard.

Her weapon is also nonstandard. Whether a railgun is better or not would of course depend on the circumstance, which we do not see, so I shelved that.

But there are explanations why nonstandard items can be used. This tells me that it is important to you, the writer, that she can have them. Clearly it is a superior armor to the standard one.

Then there's the rapeproofing idea. Sounds okay, but set against the fact it takes a lot of effort and time to take off is the fact that it takes hours to don. Your military-veteran defenders say why yes, you wear it all the time. They also say it's the first thing you put on, but we have to forget that idea when it takes hours. It would not be the first thing you put on, in a case like that, but rather an item you would never take off in the field.

Unless, like the medieval knight you compare her to, you expect combats to last mere hours and campaigns to contain weeks of down time. Does this military outfit she's in characteristically fight only for a few hours and then return to some fortress? Most wars are not ren faires. Most wars are not like medieval combat in lines and squares, with a break for darkness, truces to bury the dead, Sundays off. Medieval knights had people to help them get the damn stuff on. But maybe she goes in for a few hours or days and then always goes back to some safe place.

Lacking that data, I say that she is revealed only as someone with strong opinions about her gear, therefore a pro. She may or may not be revealed as someone who is extraordinarily attached to the idea of being rapeproof. My impression of the armor includes the fact that it has a major drawback. If that drawback is not so major (because these people don't become deployed for long term missions,for instance), then it doesn't count as heavily. So I can shelve that, too, until I see what she does.

If she does have to confront that drawback, if she does have to spend months in the armor because she dare not take the time to put it on again, then her reasons-- rapeproofing, super-strength capability, and so on-- for choosing that disadvantage become much more important. Because she is willing to undergo mortification of the flesh for the sake of those things, or else spend hours unarmored when it would have been prudent to be armored.

If she doesn't have to confront that drawback, then the passage reveals that much less about her. To be someone who'd just as soon have the better equipment does not set her apart from the rest of humanity.

So that is the answer. The answer to your question, from someone who may or may not be totally ignorant. But what if I were? Do you insist that only experts in the history of armor read your stories?
Click to expand...


cantdog said:
I can't imagine such an item. You would simply live in it, except when sheer necessity for bodily maintenance made it unavoidable.
Click to expand...

You can't imagine it.

So, Am I such a poor writer that I can't describe the concept of a self contained set of combat Armor?

Or am I just so stupid, my concepts so utterly rediculous, that no amount of description could get them across?

Personally, I'd rather it be I was such a poor writer. I'd really hate to think I'm just stupid.

In either eventuality, I don't eclude anyone from commenting when I pose a question. I just kind of expected blasting me personally wouldn't occur. I don't really think I did anything to deserve that.


I had a specific technique I was interested in. I posed a question to the writer's here of what they thought of the technique in general. to keep this from being a dry, hypothetical question, the kind that fall soff the first page in 25 minutes, I posted spopecific passages related to my attempt to use said technique. I was well aware that this would lead to specific comment on those passages.

From Doc, I got a nasty little shock, in that he found the character to be stock for the genre. While I wasn't pleased to hear that, it's invaluable information to help me going forward. I need to fully examine what traits I intend to put into my Mil-fic protags.

From Gauche, Wishful, El Sol and Stella I pretty much got a thumbs down on the technique. The Caughman finds it disturbingly close to a list. the others want to see action when they are reading something. But if you put action in, you aren't reallyusing the technique are you? You're building character through the standard technique of letting his/her actions tell you about them.

From those who liked it, the technique got a thumbs up. I was able to relate character concepts to them through the use of this particular technique.

From liar, I got a slight variation on the character concepts I wished to put forward. i do hope he will respond again, I'd really like to know if something specific I did nudged him in the direction of the take he had.

From Oggs, I got confirmation on the idea the technique works best in certain genres because the reader needs and expects some background information on the world.

And then you commented. And I got an attack on either my ability or intelligence. It was followed up with a string of quasi-rhetorical questions and statements, attacking the conceptual basis of the hardware being described.

These questions obviously cannot be addressed in such a short snippet, but most of them are addresed in the body of the work. They aren't germaine to the question, except as a comment you found the armor so fanciful that the technique failed because of it.

On the other hand. the great goose of happiness left me a note asking if I was all right. She thinks I have sounded very angry and defensive throughout this thread. Perhaps that is the case. If so, I sincerely apologize to you and anyone else I have offended.
 
BlackShanglan said:
I see nothing in your post that suggests that either of these items - "no lists" and "no lists more than three" - is, in fact, a rule. You cite "rule of thumb," "time immemorial," and "widely accepted wisdom," but these are vague terms unsupported with any specific instance or, indeed, any strong rationale. I ask quite seriously, where is there any support for either of these being a rule?
<>
The rule of three is not a rule.
<>
Shanglan
Click to expand...

A rule of three to do with rules

A Rule of Three with delivering speeches

A Rule of Three in humour

A Rule of Three concerning presentation.
 
gauchecritic said:
A rule of three to do with rules

A Rule of Three with delivering speeches

A Rule of Three in humour

A Rule of Three concerning presentation.
Click to expand...

You've given me links concerning navigation, speeches, and orally delivered humor. None of these links primarily concerns fiction, composition, or indeed anything intended primarily to be encountered as the written word. While some cite works of fiction as examples, their rules are not intended to be applied to works of fiction; they simply employ examples of texts that have used groups of three effectively. I've never denied that a group of three can be effective in the written word; I've only pointed out that many other groupings can be effective for various purposes, as I think is fairly clearly evidenced by the wealth of examples of non-trinity lists employed by master craftsmen in the English language.

Yes, a list of three is easy to remember. So are ad jingles. That is not the ruling goal of good literature, and none of what you've posted suggests that it is or should be. Using groups of three is a handy way to organize a speech, as it helps the audience remember key points. It would, however, be an absurd extension to generalize that into a claim that good writers do not use lists, or that they do not use lists of more than three. Good writers of fiction have considerably different goals to persons giving brief speeches to groups of businesspeople or constructing navigation rules that they hope boaters will remember when they don't have the book in front of them. Personally, I'm glad that Wilde did not choose to present the image of Dorian Gray's gemstone collection as a three bulleted and easily remembered points. I think aestheticism might rather have lost its charm thereby.

Shanglan
 
Last edited:
Colleen Thomas said:
ACk! Pffft! Arrrgh! Dialogue! No, no,no,no,no.

My dialogue sucks. I've come long way, at least I don't conciously go out of my way to avoid writing it, but I'll never be able to write believeable dialogue. Everything I do with it is stilted. I probably give less information via dialogue than any writer on the site. It's just outside my ability.
Click to expand...

My stories are so often told mainly in dialog!

I prefer to read that way too. That's just me. Maybe I watch too much TV:)
 
Colleen,

I never intended anything personal about it. The snippet evidently missed me. I got the wrong things out of it entirely. That is every bit as likely to be my fault as anyone's.

That was clear the first time. I came back a second time because I had a perception that the snippet's miscommunication to me might count as data. As you say, every person in the thread was struck in a different way by it. I imagined you'd find my reaction as useful as anyone's.

Somehow, though, mine seemed the most offensive, for which I apologize. I didn't like Starship Troopers, and Dosadi bored me. I read a lot of military history, or used to, but I never did read this genre. I am not versed in it. Railguns to me are a Gerard O'Neill thing.

I say, write me off. I'm one guy who just doesn't get it. It's my failing, not yours.
 
Colleen Thomas said:
I took this character, and tried to reveal a lot abou ther through her choice of Armor and weapon. Thus far, two people have commented on how much I was able to reveal about her via this method. Upwards of ten have complained I didn't do as through a job as I normally do of making the characters real.
Click to expand...

It sounds like the critisisms are just a reaction to your change in style. You've built a fan base (that's good) and sometimes that limits what you can get away with (that's bad). They didn't hate it, so that's good.;) I thought your method and effort was excellent, but I'm guessing that your never going to be able to be able to tell as much this way as with just straight out telling. I think it's probably a trade off. Just as you'll never be able to tell as much in first person limited as you would with ominscent viewpoint. I wouldn't take the critism too seriously or personally. You used a limited technique and your just learning to use it and already your succeeding with it. If you get frustrated with it, you could probably mix in a little 'tell' with your 'show' to fill in the blank spaces.

just some random thoughts.
 
cantdog said:
Colleen,

I never intended anything personal about it. The snippet evidently missed me. I got the wrong things out of it entirely. That is every bit as likely to be my fault as anyone's.

That was clear the first time. I came back a second time because I had a perception that the snippet's miscommunication to me might count as data. As you say, every person in the thread was struck in a different way by it. I imagined you'd find my reaction as useful as anyone's.

Somehow, though, mine seemed the most offensive, for which I apologize. I didn't like Starship Troopers, and Dosadi bored me. I read a lot of military history, or used to, but I never did read this genre. I am not versed in it. Railguns to me are a Gerard O'Neill thing.

I say, write me off. I'm one guy who just doesn't get it. It's my failing, not yours.
Click to expand...


No, I was wrong. I took offense where clearly none was meant. And from that point on, everything I saw was just another attack. I didn't even try to decipher it. I just took it in the most hurtful way I could read it.

You know I think the world of you and value your opinion. I hope you will forgive me for what was clearly me taking a nose dive off the deep end.

I sincerely apologise.
 
sweetnpetite said:
It sounds like the critisisms are just a reaction to your change in style. You've built a fan base (that's good) and sometimes that limits what you can get away with (that's bad). They didn't hate it, so that's good.;) I thought your method and effort was excellent, but I'm guessing that your never going to be able to be able to tell as much this way as with just straight out telling. I think it's probably a trade off. Just as you'll never be able to tell as much in first person limited as you would with ominscent viewpoint. I wouldn't take the critism too seriously or personally. You used a limited technique and your just learning to use it and already your succeeding with it. If you get frustrated with it, you could probably mix in a little 'tell' with your 'show' to fill in the blank spaces.

just some random thoughts.
Click to expand...


thanks S & P :)

I still ike the technique, but as you said, I'm still experimenting with it and learning. Hopefully anyways :)
 
*Hugs*

Not a worry in the world. I can't stay mad at you. You're too sterling. :heart:
 
Dear horsey...

You said: This leads me naturally to the question of who did invent this rule, or rather where it was that you came by it

I said basically that they are common knowledge.

You said: While some cite works of fiction as examples, their rules are not intended to be applied to works of fiction; they simply employ examples of texts that have used groups of three effectively

So you agree that others hold them as rules and even though giving examples of use this isn't where they get their rules from?

Horsey, horsey, horsey. You accept their rules but deny them their own evidence.

Here are some of the things from those page. Some align us and some deepen the cleft.

"Emerson's dictum that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" is probably applicable here but we still think The Rule of Three is a powerful technique in fashioning memorable human communications."

"Three words of description work well in introducing characters. Or three actions listed consecutively are more effective in building the tension good punch lines depend on than just one or two. Whether it's descriptive words or actions, four always seems to be too many, slowing your story down, and two not enough."

and one I missed " The rule of three is based on the technique that people tend to remember three things"

Then you said: It would, however, be an absurd extension to generalize that into a claim that good writers do not use lists, or that they do not use lists of more than three.

What I've always insisted is that in the case in question it was a list and a list of more than three, which is a general rule one should bear in mind.

I know shakespear uses them (even though I disqualified him) and I'm sure that Wilde and others do too.
 
Last edited:
gauchecritic said:
You said: While some cite works of fiction as examples, their rules are not intended to be applied to works of fiction; they simply employ examples of texts that have used groups of three effectively

So you agree that others hold them as rules and even though giving examples of use this isn't where they get their rules from?

Horsey, horsey, horsey. You accept their rules but deny them their own evidence.
Click to expand...

No. Quite clearly I don't. Your authors offered examples from literature. Examples are not rules. Your authors offered rules about speeches and navigation. Speeches and navigation are not literature. However you shuffle the pieces about, what you have not got is any rule applied to literature on the topic of lists or trinities.

The same is true of the quotations you offer. What speaks of threes doesn't speak of literature; what speaks of literature doesn't speak of threes. The references to description and character initially look like they have potential, but they are references specifically to jokes included in orally delivered presentations - not to literature.

What you require is evidence of the rule as applied to literature. The presence of lists of three in literature is not evidence that there is a "rule of three"; it is evidence that three is sometimes a useful device. I've never denied that. I've simply maintained that there are many other useful numerical devices, and that no rule exists stating that literary works should not use lists or should not use lists of other than three items. Listing works of literature that have three-item lists does not prove that this alleged rule exists; they only prove that three-item lists are sometimes useful, not that they are the only permissable option. Listing rules about speech-writing and joke-telling does not prove that this alleged rule exists; they only tell us that three-item lists are easy to remember and therefore useful for orally transmitted material, whereas most literature has different goals. The only thing that will prove that this rule exists is evidence of reputable authorities - preferably more of the Swift/Pope/Yeats variety than the Mr. Posey of the Austin Business Journal variety - accepting and endorsing this rule. I have seen no such thing by any person whatesoever.

Then you said: It would, however, be an absurd extension to generalize that into a claim that good writers do not use lists, or that they do not use lists of more than three.

What I've always insisted is that in the case in question it was a list and a list of more than three, which is a general rule one should bear in mind.

I know shakespear uses them (even though I disqualified him) and I'm sure that Wilde and others do too.
Click to expand...

If so many excellent authors break this alleged rule, and if none of them can be found to say a word in its favor, in what way is this a general rule applicable to literature? I'm not quibbling over how you applied it to Colly's story; I'm disputing the existence of a rule that prohibits the use of lists, and particularly of lists not composed of three items, in literary works - "a general rule that one should bear in mind," you claim, but one for which you have yet to supply any evidence that applies to both the rule and the literature elements at the same time. The closest you've got is Mr. Posey, a writer for the Austin Business Journal, talking about how to craft humorous stories intended for use in business presentations, and even he doesn't offer the number three it as a rule - just a suggestion. He doesn't mention lists at all - in fact, I don't believe any of your sources do.

The rule is not there.

Shanglan
 
Colly,

For starters, I'm glad you and Cant have cooled off and made up. There are too damn few "good guys" out there to have two of my favorites fussing.

As for your question: IMHO, it's borderline tedious in a 19th century, Tolstoy and Dickens sort of way. It's not bad writing. But I do believe it's out of style. It's also a dicey way to communicate info to modern, often distracted readers. Unless they're paying close attention, some of the insights might not register. That's no big deal unless that information is crucial to the story.

One last item: GAUCHE, SHANG, you two play nice. I'm only going to say this once, so you two and everyone else cut your heads in and pay attention.

There is only one, unbreakable rule for writing successful, commercial ficiton.
Under penalty of having your mailbox constantly filled with snippy rejection slips, thou shall not put anything else purporting to be a writing rule before, after, or around what I humbly refer to as:

The Right Rev. Rumple's One True and Unbreakable Rule for Writers.

DON'T BORE YOUR READER.

All other so-called "rules" of writing are just suggestions.

Now go forth and sin no more.

The Right Rev. Rumple Foreskin :cool:
 
Last edited:
Rumple Foreskin said:
There is only one, unbreakable rule for writing successful, commercial ficiton. (bold added)
Click to expand...

I believe that we have differing goals. That said ...

DON'T BORE YOUR READER.
Click to expand...

On this I entirely concur.

Shanglan
 
Last edited:
I bow to RF.

but only cos the horsey won't accept my definition of terns
 
gauchecritic said:
but only cos the horsey won't accept my definition of terns
Click to expand...

Not until you confess that they are shorebirds of the family Laridae, with webbed feet, deeply forked tails, and straight bills. ;)

And I believe it's time for a chorus of "Yes, Socrates, I see you must be right" - at least on the topic of defining one's terms before debate.

Hsst. Gauche. Meet me round the back alley for a fast and nasty bit of definition.

Shangaln
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

NivKay
Vignettes
Replies
11
Views
191
KittyOfSteele
KittyOfSteele
EmilyMiller
Pixiehoff - in memory
Replies
20
Views
777
Wag_that_tail86
Wag_that_tail86
T
Frustrated . . .
2 3
Replies
54
Views
899
TedHikes52
T
DeMont
Pronouns in writing
2 3
Replies
63
Views
929
M_K_Babalon
M_K_Babalon
Yogma
Surprising Characters
Replies
9
Views
221
NotWise
NotWise
Back
Top