A New Style of Advertising?

Posted on June 29, 2010 by Sarah Beach

(Originally posted on LiveJournal)

There’s a State Farm Insurance commercial currently playing that caught my attention. The spokesman starts talking about the company and how approachable its representatives are. He begins his speech on the sidewalk outside a cafe that has some sidewalk seating. He enters the cafe, and the camera swings around, showing the nice ambiance and the attentive wait-staff. The spokesman walks through and eventually claims a seat, all the while still talking about the wonderfulness of State Farm.

 

Now this commercial had attracted my notice from the start of its run, since the whole “enter the cafe” thing was unusual for an insurance commercial. I kept wondering if the point was that the place also had State Farm coverage. But that is never said.

But recently, I was leaving my local Post Office after mailing some items. I glanced at the various establishments on the street as I drove south. And there it was! No wonder the commercial had snagged my attention — it was familiar. The featured cafe was the Figaro Bistro in my neighborhood. Now, I’ve never been in the place, but I drive past it all the time and I knew the look of its exterior.

It got me to thinking about the whole product placement thing in movies and TV. Some grouse about the practice. Me, I find it depends on how it is done. Sometimes it is really awkward and clunky, and sometimes it flows rather naturally. That second type I don’t mind. The first I do.

Anyway, this particular commercial struck me as a bizarre sort of product placement. In this case, the “product” being “placed” is the cafe (clearly identified at the beginning). It gets “shown off” in the course of the commercial, with the camera actually leaving the insurance spokesman and lingering over the bistrot’s interior.

I wondered what kind of a deal was struck for this type of advertising. Because the way the establishment is visually presented it is no mere “location” for the commercial (certainly not the way the sweeping steel facade of the Walt Disney Hall is used as a location). It’s a nice bit of advertising for the cafe — disguised as a State Farm commercial.

I wonder if it’s a new form of symbiotic advertising?

Comments

(Anonymous) – Jun. 30th, 2010

A Symbiotic Jingle

Scribbler: Sing along with me: “Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there.” Catch the symbolism with the good neighbor motif? Figaro is a neighborhood bistro, and a good neighbor at that! State Farm gets the positive association with a good neighbor (subtlely reinforcing their brand image), and Figaro gets exposure. Sounds like a quid pro quo to me. The ultimate cooperation and win-win. Mutualism. Symbiotic.

Question: as a writer, what symbiotic relationships can you strike to showcase your great works, while helping someone benefit from being associated with you? The correct answer will ensure that your insurance premiums will be paid, and you will have money left over to go to the bistro!

Jim from Michigan

scribblerworks – Jun. 30th, 2010

Re: A Symbiotic Jingle

Now I’m going to have to pay attention again the next time the commercial shows up. I can’t recall if they played the jingle on it. Maybe a tag at the end, but I’m not sure.

As for creating that symbiotic relationship for myself… heh. Working on it.

Thanks, Jim!

(Anonymous) – Oct. 23rd, 2010

Figaro Café

Is your neighborhood North Beach in SF. I have seen this commercial many times and wondered if it was our Figaro Cafe – the blue facade is pretty distinctive. I don’t remember seeing a commercial being made and I live right around the corner, but I could have missed this one.

scribblerworks – Oct. 23rd, 2010

Re: Figaro Café

No, this is in Hollywood. This Figaro Cafe is on Vermont in the Los Feliz area.

In watching it again, the interior shots also confirm it, as I recognize what can be seen across the street.

(Anonymous) – Oct. 25th, 2010

Re: Figaro Café

Funny, I don’t live in SF but I’ve visited North Beach many times and I thought this was the same cafe you must be referring to. That’s what brought me to this web site, to confirm my hunch(or not). Looks awfully close to that one in North Beach.

scribblerworks – Oct. 25th, 2010

Re: Figaro Café

In Googling for further confirmation, it seems that the Figaro Cafe (apparently a popular name for Italian Cafes) in North Beach has closed.

But I turned up a picture of the Hollywood one on a blog post about locations that were used in the movie SWAT – including the Figaro.

www.movie-locations.com/movies/s/swat.html

(Anonymous) – Nov. 16th, 2010

Cafe Figaro

OMG, I thought I was the only one obsessed with this Cafe. My senses told me I had been there but I was thinking Larchmont Village. Thank you for making my work avoidance internet search pay off. I will toast you with a Pernod and ponder whether symbiotic advertising is the new subliminal advertising upon my next visit to Cafe Figaro!

(Anonymous) – Jan. 20th, 2011

Re: Cafe Figaro

I have wanted to know more about this cafe since I’d seen the commercial weeks ago. It is so inviting and I would have thought it was in Boston! The NYC Figaro’s has closed according to Yelp.

I enjoyed the series of comments here, especially on subliminal advertising, since I’ve been working in that field for a long time! Very interesting concept; hope to try it.

Posted in Musings | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Aristocracy of Numbers

Posted on May 10, 2010 by Sarah Beach

(Originally posted on LiveJournal)

I’m just indulging in musing on certain types of numbers, here. These are not reflections of great research, comparative study, or objective consideration. What I have to say springs entirely from a subjective view point.

What set me off was running across a blog entry (posted by an acquaintence on his blog — my first visit to his blog, since usually we are fellow-posters elsewhere on someone else’s site). He had made a short post about his significant other: she had taken the GRE in preparation for going after a Ph.D, and she’d scored a 1300. He was proud of her. (Rightly so.)

But it set me wondering about numbers and the meaning we give to them. It’s been a little bit on my mind because in the course of tidying up my apartment, I came across (again) the folder that had a number of my elementary school report cards and some other test reports.

My friend’s blog entry reminded me of my own taking of the GRE, when I decided to go after a Master’s degree. I was, at the time, a senior at the University of Houston, and decided to try and get into the Grad School in English at the University of Texas. Yes, it was the only school I’d applied to. I had looked at other schools (especially given my interest in medieval studies), but balancing out issues like cost and weather, I opted for UT for utterly pragmatic reasons. The lure of the best medieval programs gave me choices of McGill University (Montreal), University of Chicago (Windy City, hello) and the State University of New York at Binghamton (yet more winter!). I’d been in Texas long enough not to really want to deal with snowy winters again.

In any case, the UT English department didn’t care about your combined score on the GRE, they just wanted candidates to have scored at least a (not exactly sure on this) 640 on the Verbal portion. That’s what it said in their catalog.

Univeristy of Texas at Austin tower

University of Texas Tower

Now, we’re talking about the paper and pencil era, long before the computerized test was put into place. (Yes, I’m admitting I am that old.) I remember approaching the test being very relaxed. I knew being anxious would not help me with the test. But that January Saturday morning, with others waiting to take the test, I knew I was being decidedly odd-ball in my relaxation. Others were wound up about the importance of doing well on the test for their future, and so had that restless energy. Me, all I aimed to do was get a good enough score on the Verbal portion to get me into UT. So, as we waited to be brought into the test room, I was sitting in the hall reading Dorothy Sayers — Gaudy Night, I think it was. When we got into the test, I proceeded along comfortably. And I was very amused that when we got to the “Math” (or Quantitative) portion, one of the sections was actually about logic sets – something I’d actually studied in a formal logic class I’d taken. I breezed through that, happy as a clam.

My score came in and it was a bit above UT’s cut off (though I honestly do not remember by how much), and I was happy with that. It was all I cared about. The total score didn’t mean anything to me (and again, although I recall the general level, I don’t now recall the exact score). All that mattered was that the score was good enough to get me into UT, and I did get into UT.

Early in the first fall semester in Austin, the Graduate English department had a social mixer for the new grad students to meet other grad students. I drifted into a social cluster of students who were variously second year grad student in Master’s programs and some Doctoral students. Somehow the admission process got brought up, which led to the matter of scores on the GRE. I mentioned my combined score — of 1400-something. I wasn’t thinking much of it. But my comrades all paused and looked at me a bit astonished.

I’ve never paid much attention to the effect of high scores, especially on other people. All I’ve ever cared about was doing “good enough” for the immediate purposes at hand. And in the case of the GRE, I knew my combined score had been greatly advantaged by my familarity with logic sets (it was a relatively new addition to the test at that time, in fact – if it had been all-math for real, my score would not have been so high). But I really did not understand why they should be so impressed: we had all gotten into grad school, so they also had had to meet the same standards I did. None of us were dummies by any measure. So why was my combined score so impressive to them? I just didn’t get it.

All my life, it’s been that way. First it was a matter of doing well enough to satisfy my parents. When I recall how I, subjectively, only cared that it was “good enough” for them, I am amused to look at the report cards objectively now and note the consistent high grades. Well… there were the “C” marks for penmenship in third grade (when children switched from block letters to learning to write cursively).

My life in the 90th percentile (Heh, that sounds like a title) had occasional blips. When I was in tenth grade, the student body was given “differential aptitude” tests. Three of the four sections dealt with spatial recognition and analysis, and the last section was basically clerical evaluation. I scored high in the spatial sections, but got a 37% (one of the few exact scores I do recall receiving). I hated alpha-numerical sequencing, because I found it utterly boring. So it amused me later in life, that my jobs before getting work in entertainment were all clerical ones. I’m actually rather good at pattern recognition, I’m just not much engaged by it in many cases.

I don’t mean this to be all bragging — just setting up the background for my reactions to Big Important Numbers.

I had one friend who would often trot out her IQ score (it was high). I was always bemused by this. I realized that she did it as sort of an insecurity reflex. But I would also wonder how many people go around knowing what their IQ scores were. Mainly because I did not know what mine was, I suppose. But by the time I met her, I had also encountered plenty of people who were not great test-takers but who were excellent at their work, who were bright and engaging. So the numbers never really impressed me.

At some point, High Numbers stopped being a way of measuring actual achievement, and became an object in and of themselves. It puzzles me — but then I’m an archer, where the high score can really only be achieved by being excellent. You can’t fudge it. You can’t be “a good test taker” who is clueless about practicing anything tested on. In archery, you take aim, and either you hit the higher scoring areas of the target or you don’t. The scoring is an absolute measure.

Does the Aristocracy of High Numbers exist because humans are inherently responsive to hierarchy in any form? Are we responsive that way? Sometimes it seems so, what with our Best Sellers lists. I do think that we sometimes mix two types of Numbers and treat them as if they are the same: there are the High Numbers of absolute evaluation (the fastest runner, the fastest swimmer) and there are subjective “best” High Numbers (mistaking things like high books sales with high quality writing: “It sells well, so it MUST be the best written thing!”). The one I can respect as genuine achievements; the other I am indifferent to, since I often delight in more off-beat or ecclectic things.

Heh. I guess what all this rambling boils down to is, “Don’t tell me what your score is, show me what you can do.”

And I admit I’m inconsistent — my Credit Rating Score is in the “excellent” range, and I work to keep it there. Sometimes you do have to bend to the Aristocracy of Numbers.

Comments

sartorias – May. 10th, 2010

I think it’s hierarchy, but also the attitude toward the tests has changed. When I was young, there was no studying for SATs. They just happened. Likewise, they did not tell kids their IQ scores. I only found out about scoring high because my parents were invited to a special assembly for parents whose kids scored over 160. I guess colleges were recruiting at that meeting–the parents wouldn’t even tell me what happened at it. (My dad had decided where I was going because every other LA college was full of pinkos and hippies, so that was that.)

Now, helicopter parents start worrying about SATs as soon as a kid hits high school, and enrolls kids in tedious “study for the SAT” camps, and make them take practice tests over and over, in an effort to fine tune those scores. Talk about anxiety!

scribblerworks  – May. 10th, 2010

Yeah, the current state of studying and prep boggle my mind, and I’m glad enough to be out of it.

I still don’t know what my IQ scored at. Though I suspect something similar happened in my case as yours. My parents were always VERY ready to foster any of my interests, sometimes (it seemed to me) more than they did my siblings. But they were also good parents generally, so it didn’t really feel like favoritism.

sartorias – May. 10th, 2010

I wouldn’t be the least surprised if your folks got the equivalent–in my case every semester’s graduating class had 1000+ students, so they did everything in industrial “cattle mover” assemblies rather than private meetings, but your folks might have been called in for college counseling and of course you would never hear about it.

(Deleted comment)

scribblerworks – May. 11th, 2010

I agree with you about the way schools put importance on those numbers. And I certainly understand the need to get a certain score on the test (since I’ve been there myself).

But I too saw some students in graduate school who did well on the GRE, but who didn’t manage in the classes as effectively. It was one of the things that startled me in my first semester in grad studies: when the professor asks a grad student, “What do you think about this?” they really did want to know what you thought and were not so interested in the “standard regurgetation.” 😀

Numbers as motivation, though? Well, yes. “A target number of pages written on my script!” “X number of words done this week!”

I guess we can’t quite get away from them, can we? I guess my thing is that I just leave them were they were of use. What use is there to me know in keeping hold of my SAT or GRE score? Heh. Although I suppose they do impress some people. But — be it understood, I do not scorn those who do well, and celebrate their achievement.

Aren’t humans strange creatures? (Oh dear, I seem to be in a flippant mood today.)

Posted in Personal | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Adventures at WonderCon

Posted on April 18, 2010 by Sarah Beach

It was no joke when I drove up to San Francisco on April 1.

Since there was a possibility of rain throughout the middle of California that day, I decided to drive US 101 instead of I-5.  I didn’t want to be stuck on the long boring drive of the I-5 in a downpour.  As it happened, the drive on the 101 was lovely.  A fine driving day.  But, it was 8 hours on the road for me, so I arrived at the hotel in San Francisco pretty much as a road-zombie.

WonderCon is primarily a comics convention, although smaller than the San Diego Comic Con International that I go to each year.  This was my first excursion to the Bay Area convention, although I’d considered going the last couple of years.  One thing that prompted me this year was that two friends (Colleen Doran and Gail Simone) were to be Special Guests of the con.  So between that and the opportunity for more conversation with editors, I headed to San Francisco Easter weekend.

Colleen Doran at 2010 WonderCon

Colleen Doran at 2010 WonderCon

Colleen is always delightful, and she was expecially charming for her Spotlight panel.  I had spent some time chatting with her at her table in Artist’s Alley beforehand and had discovered one of her techniques for surviving conventions — bunny slippers.

 

A closer look

Bunny slippers

Bunny slippers

She ended up wearing them to her panels, which was amusing to see in the corridors of the convention center.  Her Spotlight panel with Derek McCullough was filled with laughter – starting with his declaration that he had prepared for the interview by doing the obvious thing: reading the Wikipedia entry about her.

Colleen and Derek

 

That had been on Friday.  On Saturday, she was also the heart of a panel on Creator’s Rights – an issue she is very passionate about.  She shared this panel with Mark Evanier and Mike Lovitz, and the three of them conveyed a lot of useful information to the filled room.

creators rights panel

Creators Rights panel

Gail Simone was on a few panels, but her Spotlight panel was just her, and it was very enjoyable.

Gail Simone

Gail Simone

 

I’m afraid I was a bit shaky hand taking this picture, which is unfortunate, since Gail was looking so terrific.

On Friday evening Hero Initiative had a benefit function at the Comic Arts Museum, two block from the hotel.  The exhibit was interesting, and everyone milling around was enjoying themselves.  Gail and her husband Scott were there and I got to chat with them a bit, but as Guest of the convention, Gail went off to give an interview.

I had a pleasant time chatting with various folks – particularly Bob Schreck at the IDW booth.  Bob’s career has been in editing, but he recently tackled writing an arc of the Jurassic Park franchise that IDW recently picked up.  He was pleased and excited about it.

Bob Schreck

Bob Schreck

 

There was a delightful panel with Sergio Aragones and Mark Evanier.  I had been in the room for the previous panel, so I hadn’t realized the line of people outside waiting to get in.  The previous one ran a bit long (it was the Creator’s Rights panel), and Sergio was concerned about those waiting.  He wouldn’t start until everyone who had been waiting got in the room and had a seat.  Now, that’s how to nurture your fans.  Mark and Sergio then went off on stories of how they worked together and some of their fun encounters.  Utterly delightful (and how can it not be, with Sergio in the mix?).

All the trudging around in chilly, moist air (outside) and chill air (inside) made my knees stiff, so late Saturday afternoon, I needed to sit down.  I took a seat in a lounge area, and ended up sharing my table with a couple of guys in costume who were seeking the same relief.  They were amusing and pleasant to chat with.  But I did have to ask one of them about his costume.  I mean, seriously?  Big Boy?  He said that Big Boy had had a comic for a brief time back in the past, so he felt that worked.  The idea behind their costumes was “What if this character wanted to be a Jedi?”  So, I present to you: Big Boy Jedi and Vegas Elvis Jedi!

Mashup jedi cosplay

Big Boy Jedi and Vegas Elvis Jedi

 

Sunday was much lighter in programming that I wanted to attend.  But it still had it’s moments, especially at the DC Comics Sunday Conversation.  Ian Sattler played ring leader to the exchanges (taking over from Dan DiDio).  Of the other three at the panel table, I only knew Jimmy Palmiotti.  But the exchanges between the panelists and the fans in the audience were fun and lively.  It was a great way to wind down the con experience.

After the Conversation panel was over, I wandered down to the exhibit hall, but it was already getting thin of company.  There didn’t seem to be anyone around to chat with.  So I turned toward the door, to head out, and there was Ian Sattler and one of the writers from the Conversation panel.  They graciously let me interrupt them, and I thanked Ian for a fun panel discussion (I had been throwing my two cents in rather freely).  We chatted a bit about the new state of affairs at DC — although for the writer working at getting in with them, it doesn’t really involve that much change.  Ian recommended that I continue to talk with the editors I do know, because persistence is the way in.  Since they did have their own business to talk about, I didn’t linger long with them.

By this time it was a bit before 4 p.m.  I had a long drive ahead of me, and as I stepped outside, it had started to rain.  I got back to the hotel, collected by bags and car and got on the road.  By that time the rain was really coming down!  It had been three days since I last drove, and my Mustang does have a very smooth ride, but … there was something about the feel of the car on the freeway that made me suspect some hydroplaning was going on.  It felt more like a boat as it traveled with the freeway pack, a faint swish at the rear.  I focused very intently on the driving for the first hour (from downtown San Francisco to San Jose).

Once I got past San Jose, I stopped to fill up with gas.  I had decided to return by way of the 101, because of the rain (which was spread across a wide portion of the state), and the approaching dark of night.  Yet, as I left the convenience store at the stop (more caffeine!), one woman was asking how to get over to the I-5.  She too was heading toward LA.  I was appalled at the idea of someone choosing to drive the I-5 in driving rain with night coming on — if ever there was a road that would put you to sleep in the best of circumstances, the I-5 is it.  And there are far fewer places to stop on it.  I don’t know if I persuaded her.  I got back on the road (it was still raining), and drove on.

I’d been driving about three hours and realized I was beginning to get groggy.  There was no sign that the rain would let up at all anywhere in the distance to LA.  I thought about the last parts of the drive that I would be likely to be traveling at 1 a.m. if I tried getting all the way home.  It was not a happy thought.  And then I went, “I don’t have to be back in LA in the morning!”  (Sometimes there is a benefit to being without a job!)  So I made the decision to stop at King City, get a motel room and get some rest.

I stayed at the Quality Inn and it was pleasant after trudging around all weekend.  I got a good night’s sleep and was ready to hit the road in the morning.  After I checked out, I drove over to the Denny’s and noticed the sign of the Day’s Inn that I had bypassed in favor of the Quality Inn — the Day’s Inn had jacuzzis in the rooms!  Oh!  What might have been!  Heh.  I had a good breakfast and hit the road.

Some rain, much lighter than the previous night’s, fell through the early part of the drive.  But it went away, the sun came out, and the rest of the drive was pleasant.  A morning call from my sister had delayed my starting out, so it was 5 when I got home, but I didn’t mind.  Sore feet and stiff knees aside, I’d had a good weekend.

But I am thinking that next time I go to San Francisco for a convention, I might enjoy it more if I took the train. (There is no romance in flying LA to SF.)

Posted in Comics, Conventions, Travel | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Reading of Dragons

Posted on March 28, 2010 by Sarah Beach

(Originally posted on LiveJournal)

I like dragons. I collect dragons, but only if they are interesting looking – I’m not particularly fond of overly cutesy ones (although a do have a couple that might fit this category) or that are seen too much (although I do have a Maleficent from Disney’s Sleeping Beauty).

I hadn’t given much thought to dragons encountered in prose… until recently when I started reading Naomi Novik’s books.

So, I started thinking about various dragons that I had come to appreciate ….

Smaug, who is sly and guileful as he toys with the Invisible Thief. Somehow he always has seemed more accessible to me than Glaurung in Tolkien’s works.

Then there were Anne McCaffrey’s dragons fo Pern. Mnementh and Ramoth impressed me when I first read the books. But looking at it now, that might have been because the story requires that they be impressive. As personalities, considered from this distance, they don’t make as strong an impression on my imagination.

I’ve read Chris Paolini’s first volume. But Saphira, like the McCaffrey dragons, makes an impression because the story requires it, not because her personality wins that effect.
And then there’s my friend James A. Owen, whose whole series has dragons lurking in the background. Well, most of the dragons are lurking. And some of the previewed illustrations for volume 5 tantalize with more dragons. But I was utterly charmed and won by his Samaranth. Singular and enigmatic, Samaranth makes a powerful impression in his infrequent and short appearances in the stories.

Before I turn to Novik’s Temeraire, I have to mention R.A. MacAvoy’s Mayland Long, from Tea with the Black Dragon. He’s not really a dragon any longer, having chosen to take on human shape. But he retains a proper dragonish aura and personality.

So, I have had the Science Fiction Book Club’s omnibus edition of the first Temeraire books, and it has been sitting around for some times. I have heard and read favorable comments from friends whose evaluations I trust. My eyebrows were dubiously raised at the news that the stories involved “dragons in the Napoleonic era”. But I was willing to go along with the mix. But I still did not make the time-space available to start reading, until recently.

And was utterly charmed. First off, there is simply the high quality of Novik’s writing, effectively evoking the period, with research that shines because she handles it with great ease. But best of all is the personality of Temeraire himself. From the first moment when he asks Lawrence why he is frowning, this inquisitive dragon has been charming me. With the insistent curiosity of an active child, to his thinly veiled anxieties and jealousies, Temeraire sparkles with personality in a way few fictional dragons have – at least for me.
(I certainly recommend Novik’s work, by the way. If you haven’t read it yet, do get to it!)
So I stepped back from my list of specific fictional dragons and thought about it generally.

What is the appeal of dragons? There is something of the appeal of fictional horses, those special mounts that have deep connections with the characters that ride them. But of course, a dragon is far, far more than a horse (and they would be rightfully indignant at the comparison). Is it the “special friend” that can talk with you, on a deep personal way that no other human can match? Is it simply their otherness? Of course, the ability to fly does carry a strong appeal, but there have been giant birds in fictions that do not evoke the same response.

I have not figured it out. I love dragons. It amuses me greatly that I was born at the “tail end” of a Year of the Dragon.

But until reading of Temeraire, it would not have occured to me to muse upon what makes a strong fictional dragon, one with an indelible personality.

Comments

nellorat – Mar. 28th, 2010

I think at least when we’re young, dragons have an appeal similar to that of dinosaurs: they’re very alien, distant enough from our reality to not be REALLY frightening, but it’s cool to think about how BIG they are and how they can KICK ASS. I was more a dinosaur child, but dinosaurs can become prosaic & dragons never can.

Re dragons vs. huge birds: the latter are almost never given the ability to talk! I think an intelligent roc or phoenix would be way cool!

scribblerworks – Mar. 28th, 2010

I agree that there is a bit to the trend of interest in dinosaurs leading to dragons. I certainly was fascinated by dinosaurs when little – the different types and what their survival tactics were. But that fascination was imaginatively fed by two things then — the book The Enormous Egg (which I still think would make a fun family movie), and the fact that the Calgary Zoo had full scale concrete replicas of dinosaurs as part of the grounds. Calgary is near the Alberta regions that have many dino-fossils. And the big brontosaurus (yes, I know that it is now properly named apatosaurus, but he was a bront back then) was a major photo op spot, with a wide space of parkland in front of him.

I’m not sure what my first literary dragon really was. “Puff the Magic Dragon”?

Phoenixes have gotten short shrift in fantasy, I think, at least so far. Fawkes in the Harry Potter books is an exception, of course. But there aren’t many of them, and they don’t seem to talk much.

margdean56 – Mar. 29th, 2010

There was a book I read when I was growing up called David and the Phoenix that had an intelligent, talking phoenix. There’s also the one in E. Nesbit’s The Phoenix and the Carpet, of course.

But dragons are cool. Except when they’re hot. 😉

scribblerworks – Mar. 29th, 2010

I do recall one book about a phoenix that I read as a child, but I don’t recall what it was. It might have been the Nesbit. The part I do recall is that the phoenix need to build a nest to burn so it could rise from the ashes, and the nest needed to include cinnamon. I think. I don’t know why that detail stuck with me, but it did. It seemed especially wonderful to me.

margdean56 – Mar. 29th, 2010

That actually sounds like David and the Phoenix, because I remember that scene.

margdean56 – Mar. 29th, 2010

Do you also remember that Griffins are different from Griffens and Griffons? I know I got that from DatP.

sartorias – Mar. 28th, 2010

I think we’re fascinated with anything that is big and fast and smart and powerful. Other can also help.

The first Temeraire book showed a bit too much Patrick O’Brian without understanding of the historical understructure, but she sure fixed that fast!

The thing I really, really like about those books is that Novik is the first to show up the devoted animal companion trope as basically slavery. Wow!

scribblerworks – Mar. 28th, 2010

On the slavery matter, yes! It’s a very effective matter.

I mean, stories where the dragons are fully independent (as Samaranth is) are perfectly acceptable. But the “devoted animal companion”, when the “animal” proves to be a sentient creature capable of reason… how is it not slavery? I think McCaffrey’s dragons are on that line. Bred up from animals, those dragons seem capable of independent reasoning, and yet the telepathic bond with their riders keeps them pretty much chained. (I admit, I haven’t read any Pern books since Moretta’s Ride. I felt the writing quality fell off at that point, and it just lost me.)

But Novik’s approach opens up that whole question of the relationship of hero and “devoted animal companion”. I look back over things I’ve read, and even my own stories, and consider — how much of it is mutual choice, and how much of it is “enslavement”?
In The Ring of Adonel, my hero has a special relationship with his horse. But his horse is not magical. Even so, their relationship is one of choice, I think, even on the part of the horse.

In my material, I have plans for at least one story that will involve a unicorn-like creature – which will definitely be smaller than a horse, indeed, more like a deer. They do not speak to humans, but I intend them to be sentient. And they are not going to be treated by me as animals, although all their appearance will be such (and so they will be mistaken by characters in the stories). This is something that has been in the plans for decades. But as you say, Novik’s handling of the dragons highlights issues about “creatures in fantasies” that haven’t really been much addressed before.

sartorias – Mar. 28th, 2010

It’s a benevolent slavery, but they key is this: sentient as they are, and powerful as they are, their entire lives are in service of the human. They have no lives of their own (except for the mating and providing of dragons for future impressments in McCaffrey’s world), they have no culture of their own, in spite of that sentience, their concerns are the human’s, and they are ever ready to be summoned. That is the essence of slavery.

scribblerworks – Mar. 29th, 2010

Yup.

And I think the lack of “culture of their own” in McCaffrey’s dragons is why they pale beside Samaranth and Temeraire.

nthdraft – Mar. 28th, 2010

I tried reading the first Temeraire book. I was told it was like “Master and Commander” with dragons, which one would think would hit two of my buttons, but I didn’t get hooked, because the more I read, the more I saw it not just like “Master and Commander” with dragons, it basically was, in the sense that O’Brien’s characters and books were given the “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” treatment. Not for me.

I really loved the concept of ‘Tea with the Black Dragon’ insofar as Mayland was concerned. But I did walk away from that book believing the writer had committed a grave literary sin which I have not forgotten to this day: why make the protagonist something as whimsical and interesting as an Irish fiddler, and then have her do nothing whatsoever with it? (this book I found because I found a wonderful filksong years ago and didn’t know it was based on a book–same way I found Hughart’s “Bridge of Birds“)

My favorite western fictional dragons are the ones in LeGuin’s “Earthsea” books. Not to be messed with, even by wizards. But I have always been more intrigued by the asiatic dragons. Haku from “Spirited Away” falls into this category.

scribblerworks – Mar. 28th, 2010

I suppose in my case, the benefit in approaching Novik’s stories is that I have not (yet) read any of O’Brien’s books. Yes, I realize that this is a failing on my part. I imagine I will get there eventually. I do know enough of the popularity of O’Brien’s books that I realized that was one of Novik’s influences (just as it’s easy enough to spot when Georgette Heyer has been a big influence on period romance writers), but I felt she did a pretty fair job of her cross-genre weaving. At least enough for me to read it on its own merits and not be weighed against the inspirations.

I agree that MacAvoy didn’t make much of the protagonist being a fiddler. I suspect it was one of those cases where the writing went galloping to the end, passing right over that point. (The heroine’s Zen interests play a bigger aspect.) The story is spare and charming, and the mystery to be solved impells things forward. It would not be an easy matter to “make more of” the fiddling. Hmm. Interesting problem (I’ve occasionally toyed with the idea of the book as a film – the fiddling is something that might be worked in, but it would have to be done carefully).

It’s been quite a while since I last read LeGuin’s books. Hmm. Memory tells me her dragons were a bit disdainful of humans, but memory can be wrong. I guess I’ll have to look again. 😀

nthdraft – Mar. 28th, 2010

about MacAvoy: as a film, yeah, it could at least be seen, even in a quick montage, flashback, anything. But in the book it was something that was mentioned a couple of times and then dropped. It’s a thin volume, so not much room for adding in that does not become padding, so there’s even more need to keep unnecessary extraneous information out. It was just mentioned and dropped. I spent the entire mystery part being distracted waiting for that shoe to drop and for the fiddling to become important, and so, it derailed it for me. I had to reread it without paying attention to the fiddling mentions, then it was fine, but it kind of ruined that first read through waiting for the planted information to take root.

It would make a pretty cool movie. Hollywood will never touch it though, darnit.

sartorias – Mar. 28th, 2010

Patrick O’Brian, actually. (You won’t find his works under O’Brien. Kinda like you won’t find Pride and Prejudice under ‘Jane Austin’)

nthdraft – Mar. 28th, 2010

I originally wrote “O’Brian” and then for some reason thought it didn’t look right and second guessed myself. Too lazy to go to the bookshelf and check. Whoops.

sartorias – Mar. 28th, 2010

Well, O’Brien is the usual spelling, and he made up the name for himself, but for purposes of future looking up, I offer the correction.

scribblerworks – Mar. 29th, 2010

Add me to the “Ooops” column.

At least my excuse is that (1) I haven’t read the books, and so have not had the name on a book cover in front of me, and (2) I’m used to spelling the B part of the name as “Brian” since that’s my cousin’s name. 😀

How’s that for feeble? But thanks!

sartorias – Mar. 29th, 2010

Like I said, O’Brien is a more usual spelling, so it’s easy to err.

Posted in Personal | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Mind Mapping — What??

Posted on February 25, 2010 by Sarah Beach

(Originally posted on LiveJournal)

So I got this email today from a software supplier I’ve used in the past. One of those “new product” promotional emails. I didn’t mind that – I had after all indicated I was willing to receive such emails.

This was for a mind-mapping software program.

What? Mind-mapping? What’s that?

I had not run across this previously, and so set out on a hunt to find out what the heck it was this was talking about. Especially since the product the email was about was version FIVE from this company.

What I found was both intriguing and baffling. I sort of get it — being able to create branching trees of ideas, so that you can look at it graphically. Outlines with boxes and ovals for sub-thoughts, and lines showing connections. Okay. But how to make it work? So far, the explanation videos I’ve found are heavily loaded with the theoretical term lables for thought patterns: “data”, “information”, “knowledge”, “wisdom” and on to creativity. But nowhere have I found after the theoretical explanation a sample example of it in process. I was really, really ready for a follow-up to the explanation of: “For example – if you were trying to sort information about medieval coins, their metals, distribution, designs, distribution, here is how you would arrange all these things.” A practical example of your “wonderful tool” would be really great, especially for the newbie who stumbles across the thing.

Mind MappingIt’s something I run across more and more these days, the in-jargon of a particular arena. It doesn’t even matter what sort of arena it is, it happens everywhere. Communities develop their own “in-group” references that can baffle an outsider who enters in. And very few people think to offer translations that will help a newbie/outsider quickly get into the flow.

So, after an hour of nibbling at the edges of this thing called “mind-mapping”, I’m left mildly intrigued, but not convinced or wowed. Why do I need this again? I have Writers Blocks which lets me build all sorts of things for conceptual organization. I’ve had one version or the other (actually versions 1 and 3) for the better part of 10 years. I use it for outlining now. I use it for storing story ideas for scripts and novels. I use it for keeping all sorts of records (like all the keys to various websites I have to log in to access). I use it for keeping track of the world-building information for my fantasy world (the characters, the races, the places, the events, the time line, and the outlines for various stories). It seems to me that I already do a version of mind-mapping with this computerized file-card program.

But having encountered this new thing, it’s tickling the back of my mind like a new toy.

Good thing I’m taking a hiatus from spending money much right now. ‘Cause I probably don’t need it.

But is there anyone out there who does know more about mind-mapping, who is willing to give me a better idea of what it is and why I might need it? I’m sort of willing to be persuaded, if I could be convinced it’s a better way of doing things than I’ve got right now.

😀

Comments

muuranker – Feb. 25th, 2010

But is there anyone out there who does know more about mind-mapping, who is willing to give me a better idea of what it is and why I might need it? I’m sort of willing to be persuaded, if I could be convinced it’s a better way of doing things than I’ve got right now.

Doing things? Doing what???

I am using mind maps as a way of note-taking, and as a way of storing/communicating information – here, for example, is the beginning of a map storing/communicating to other students the key data about a supermarket chain: https://www.mindmeister.com/maps/show/40678840

They are sort-of like a family tree of thought. You build them partly because when finished they (like a summary of an article) it is useful in itself) and partly because the process of building them (as in preparing a summary) is a useful mental exercise. Don’t get led astray by the example – they summarise, but are not a summary.

Rather than shell out $$$, I suggest you download something like freeplane, and play with it. Put ‘hero’ in the middle, and see what you come up with it.

The reasons why mind-mapping are ‘good’
– its non-linear.
– its like one-person brainstorming
– its a way of cloud brainstorming (the ‘don’t critically review until phase 2’ rule comes into play)

Hope that helps!

scribblerworks – Feb. 26th, 2010

Thanks for this response! It is helpful.

Unfortunately, the website won’t let me see the specific example you linked to. Apparently I not only have to register with the website, I have to be socially connected with that person. *sigh* But your explanation with the previous description does make it clearer.

Now I’ve got something to think about. 😀

kalimac – Feb. 25th, 2010

Computer people, and perhaps other people, can be like that. I once had a job interview at a high-tech startup firm, at the end of which I still had no idea what I would be doing, or for whom, or how it fit in to the larger picture. I can only work within context, so I had to decline. They looked thunderstruck: apparently I was the first person they’d ever interviewed who found this a problem.

scribblerworks – Feb. 26th, 2010

This makes me chuckle. It’s sad but true!

And you, of course, are an unusual person, since you preferred to actually know what the job was, rather than just take it and fake it. One of the things I like and admire about you.

sartorias – Feb. 25th, 2010

Sounds like high tech cat vacuuming to me!

scribblerworks – Feb. 26th, 2010

Just when you want to be an octopus, so you can hold the cat AND the vacuum! 😀

dewline – Feb. 26th, 2010

And you already need both of your human hands for the vacuum, depending on what make and model you’re using!

dewline – Feb. 26th, 2010

As noted by others…

There are freeware versions of this sort of thing available around the Net, if you’re of a mind to experiment with it in any case.

I can’t argue for or agin it right now myself. muuranker makes the “for” side of the case well enough, though.

scribblerworks – Feb. 26th, 2010

Re: As noted by others…

Yes, I’m thinking of giving the freeware versions a try. The email was for NovaMind – which does seem more adaptable. But it’s a much better idea to get some sense of the general nature of that type of program before spending money.

Posted in Personal | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Surprises of Nature

Posted on February 10, 2010 by Sarah Beach

(Originally posted on LiveJournal)

It’s been raining here in Los Angeles the last two days, off and on. Today, there was even a bit of thunder (and lightning, I assume) during the daytime. Between that and the damp chill, it was definitely a day to stay inside.

However, I did need to get some groceries at some point. So, when late in the afternoon there seemed to be a break in the torrents, I went out to drive to the grocery.

I stepped out the back door of the building, headed toward my car. This has me facing east. The sun had not set yet, so it was still shining a good deal of light. And to the east there was obviously still some rain falling and moisture from the low clouds. The sun was hitting all those air-borne prisms at the perfect angle. The result was the most perfect rainbow I have seen in a long time. Full spectrum of colors, and a complete arch across the east.

Rainbow over Los Angeles

I didn’t capture a great image, so this is a picture of a generic rainbow over LA

I stood there staring at it a couple of minutes, surprised by the perfection of it (even when seen through the annoyance of urban power lines). It pulled a spontaneous smile of delight from me.

It didn’t last long, of course. The sun was shifting downward, and so the vivid strength of the colors melted away. I did try taking a picture of it with my cell phone camera, but although I have not transfered it to my computer yet, I don’t think it really captured more than a streak of light arching across the sky. But it was clearly imprinted on my brain, keyed with the memory of the sudden delight.

Comments

sartorias – Feb. 10th, 2010

Oh how I love those rainbows!

scribblerworks – Feb. 10th, 2010

A friend of mine got about 17 seconds of video of it, which he posted on his Facebook page. Not sure I can link to it.

But it really was gorgeous. And one of those wonderful serendipities that I happened to step outside at just the right moment to see it in its full brightness.

auriaephiala – Feb. 11th, 2010

It is so wonderful when you get a perfect rainbow. Being able to see the entire spectrum, from violet/indigo to red, is amazing.

My all-time favourite was a full double rainbow, spread above a local farm.

Posted in Personal | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Adventures in Chocolate

Posted on January 25, 2010 by Sarah Beach

(Originally posted on LiveJournal)

Recently an online friend posted about encountering an upscale chocolate bar flavored with chili flavor.

At first, I thought this bizarre, but the more I considered it and the history of chocolate, the more reasonable the proposition seemed to be.

Spicy Maya from ChuaoThe brand he had encountered was Chuao, and the bar was called “Spicy Maya”. It is, according to its label, a “dark chocolate bar infused with pasilla chile and cayenne pepper”. (Now, mind you, I’d always understood the spelling c-h-i-l-e to reference the country and not the hot, vegitive food substance. But that’s what’s on their label, so I’ll go with it.)

Out of curiousity, I went looking for this, but couldn’t find it. Instead, I found a bar from Lindt, titled “Excellence Chili”. It is “extra fine dark chocolate with red chili” or (as it says on the front) “Dark – infused with premium red chili”.

So, there it was. I now faced the question of whether I was ready to step outside my usual taste-bud expectations and find out what these had to offer me. It turned out, I was indeed ready! (I did eventually find a place that carries the Chuao bar, so the following compares the two.)

Lindt's Chili chocolate barOkay, starting out, we’re dealing with dark chocolate here, not milk chocolate. So the flavor of the chocolate itself is stronger, and actually a bit less sweet than your milk chocolate. That will please those who usually like dark chcolate.

The Chuao bar was interesting, in that the cayenne pepper gave an initial bite to the bar. It is not over-powering, but it definitely diverts the taste buds from any expectation of sweetness. The Chuao bar also has a dash of cinnamon mixed in, and this goes a long way toward tempering the after-burn of the chili flavoring. The cinnamon does give you the sensation of being “sweeter”, though.

The Lindt bar does not contain these additional spices, so the mix is much more just the chocolate and chili. The after-burn on this bar is a bit stronger.

In neither case is the after-burn from the chili unpleasant or overpowering. The chocolate makes for a pleasing balance in taste. The interesting aspect of it, however, is that the chili undercuts the impulse to gobble the bar down. The Chuao bar is 2.82 oz, while the Lindt bar is 3.5 oz. The Lindt happened to be the first I tried, and it is made in a form that 10 squares. I broke off 2 squares, and was quite satisfied with the experience of that much, and so held off eating more of it for some time. I think I nibbled my way through it over the course of 3 days. I enjoyed the savory of it. I think the chili countered the caro-craving that sugar can trigger. The same was true of the Chuao bar.

It seems counter-intuitive to tell chocoholics that they will actually crave less of these bars, while at the same time recommending them, but there you are. It is a very satisfying, but unusual taste experience.

I’d be interested to hear from others who have tried out the chocolate-chili combos.

Comments

ann1962 – Jan. 26th, 2010

I’ve tried them but I like my chocolate plain.

I prefer to put chocolate in my chili. It gives it a wonderful depth of flavour. Maybe a 1/4 to 1/2 a bar of plain dark chocolate into a pot of chili.

scribblerworks – Jan. 26th, 2010

I’ll have to consider that, in the pot of chili that is. Just for something different (I was traumatized at first after my move from Texas to California — the first chili I had in California was watery!).

dewline – Jan. 26th, 2010

In my case, the brand’s a locally-based one: Cocoa Camino. But they do the same sort of blending, with their sources certified for fair trade purposes. I’ve tried those bars a couple of times…and in my case, I’d say that it’s maybe a tad on the mild side for me. But then, I grew up addicted to pepperoni pizza.

scribblerworks – Jan. 26th, 2010

I’m not really a hot spice person, especially not jalepenos, for instance, but I did wonder if these chocolates might not be on the mild side for the fire-mouth fans.

I do love me some pepperoni, too, though. That I can put up with.

margdean56 – Jan. 26th, 2010

A local espresso place in Santa Fe, Ecco’s, serves a spicy cocoa (made with dark chocolate) that I adore. The chili flavor is not overpowering, just gives a nice extra kick, and warmth, to the hot chocolate.

scribblerworks – Jan. 26th, 2010

Hmmm. I would not have thought of it in drinkable fashion. I’ll have to see if I can find some of that, at least to try it out.

margdean56 – Jan. 26th, 2010

Actually I found a recipe for it online, though I haven’t tried it out. I’ll happily forward it to you if you’d like (especially if you can’t find it locally).

muuranker – Jan. 26th, 2010

I have been given various kinds of chocolate/chilli (and chilli with chocolate and a wonderful stew in Tuscany which appeared to be boar simmered for 3 days in a VERY large bar of Cadbury’s fruit-and-nut (yes, even to the fruit and the nuts!).

The Lindt version is the only one I’ve bought, and also found it satisfying by the square-or-twoful.

Oddly, wasabi nuts are not satisfying in small doses!

Cinnamon in chocolate I’ve only encountered in Maya Gold (http://www.greenandblacks.com/us/what-we-make/bars/maya-gold.html) which is among my favourite chocolates.

scribblerworks – Jan. 26th, 2010

Oh, yes indeed! I love Green and Black’s Maya Gold. I am very fond of the chocolate and orange combination, and have been since childhood. I used to make a chocolate chip cookie, that was basically an orange flavored sugar cookie (using concentrated orange juice and a dash of orange oil), with the chips stirred in. The oil would cling to the chips. It was great!

I also like raspberry and chocolate.

Yum.

ext_219025 – Jan. 28th, 2010

mmmmm

So I am huge chocolate fiend. When I saw the title of this post, I mentally checked the refrigerator and remembered that there is absolutely no chocolate present for me to indulge, then proceeded to read your blog.

I can definitely see how the presence of chili in a chocolate bar can halt that urge to devour the entire bar. I love dark chocolate and raspberry. I am going to have to look for these special chocolate chili bars and try them out now! You have piqued my taste buds!

Posted in Personal | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Musing About Mythcon Subjects

Posted on January 2, 2010 by Sarah Beach

(Originally posted on LiveJournal)

So Mythcon this year (which I do not have to oversee) will be in Dallas, July 9 through12. The chairs have selected a theme of “War in Heaven” — which is a wonderfully provocative theme. There are so many possibilities to discuss this issue in fantasy literature! My mind is bubbling with possibilities.

Mythcon 41 logoAfter all, it’s actually been quite a while since I last applied myself to a piece of scholarship. I need to exercise those brain muscles. What to do? What to do?

The first thing that popped in my head was “Something with Tolkien and Milton!” Which seemed really cool while it was out there vaguely in the brain-ether. But once (this last week) I started bringing the brain into focus on the matter, I wondered “So what am I going to say about them?”

“Oh. You mean I have to have a thesis?”

“That’s usually how it works, if you will recall.”

“Oh. Hmmm. I guess that means I should do some rereading, yes?”

“That’s a starting point.”

The other work I’ve thought of preparing a paper on is my friend Coleman Luck’s Angel Fall — though I haven’t decided yet how to approach that. Certainly, angelic conflict is at the core of that story, but it too needs to be reread. Because it suddenly occurred to me to wonder why the Deity could not interfere in the course of events in the story’s world. Why did he had to wait on the actions of the characters?

Hmmmmmm. I’d forgotten all the work involved in this scholarship stuff. Guess I need to get cracking, if I’m going to have anything done by July. Heck, I need to reread Tolkien’s “creation story” to decide if I can indeed make a discussion about his choices versus Milton’s. But… it’s such a good theme! I want to try.

Comments

kalimac – Jan. 2nd, 2010

If you do want to approach Tolkien and Milton, do it fast: I suspect several other minds are approaching the same comparison. But don’t worry, there’ll be no competition from me. Milton the monster; I’m not re-reading him for any money.

scribblerworks – Jan. 2nd, 2010

Yes, when I first heard of the theme, I suspected there would be many considering the Tolkien-Milton matter. Which is why I really need to come up with a solid thesis, if I’m going to do it.

I’ve also been considering a more general paper on “apocalyptic” fantasies, where the heroes defeat some “ultimate evil”… and the problems of writing sequels to them.

kalimac – Jan. 2nd, 2010

If you do go for the more general paper, you might want to consider the duology Black Easter and The Day After Judgment by James Blish (published together as The Devil’s Day and, I think, other titles).

Black Easter is a tale designed to be so apocalyptic that no possible sequel could be imaginable. The Day After Judgment is, nevertheless, a sequel to it. Go figure.

sartorias – Jan. 2nd, 2010

I like his short poems and letters, but the biggie . . . phew!

Posted in Conventions | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Signing and Selling at Loscon

Posted on November 25, 2009 by Sarah Beach

This weekend I will be attending Loscon at the Airport Marriott near LAX, here in Los Angeles.  I attended the first time last year, and kicked myself for skipping it all these years (I have a lot of friends who go regularly).  It was fun.

This year, as a member of the Greater Los Angeles Writers Society (known as GLAWS) I’m taking part in a couple of panels.  One is on Writing Hard Science Fiction When You Are Not a Scientist.  The other is on World Building in Science Fiction & Fantasy.  They both should be great discussions – my fellow panelists are great.

I’ll also be at the GLAWS booth in the dealers room, from time to time (depending on the con schedule).  I’ll have copies of The Scribbler’s Guide to the Land of Myth for sale — with a special discount on the price for attendees at the con.

Posted in Conventions, Scribbler's Guide | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Writing Description

Posted on October 22, 2009 by Sarah Beach

(Originally posted on LiveJournal)

Recently, I was reading the first chapter of a friend’s current work-in-progress, in order to give her notes on it.

So, let me say that first off, I did like her story. She is a good storyteller.

But something about the chapter nagged at me, because the descriptions felt flat. On the one hand, it was clear to me that she has a sure vision of her characters and setting. And the chapter was not lacking in the details. But on the other hand, something just wasn’t working.

Building details in descriptionWhen I went back through the pages, I realized that it was because just about all the description was carried by a “adjective plus noun” structure. Almost all the key nouns were tagged with adjectives or adjectival conjunctions. The constant repetition of this formula flattened out the effect of the details.

Secondly, she didn’t give any over-all descriptions to describe the general impact of the setting. So instead of giving us an initial impact of “a richly appointed office, gleaming with brass, glass and polished leather” (the effect I think she was going for), she gave the details of specific items as her character dealt with them. The sum of the details was not greater than the total, instead, it was considerably less.

After writing up the notes for my friend, I turned to working on some revisions to my own work, based off notes from a critique group. Their principal note was that I had included too many “new” words (this is my fantasy, The Ring of Adonel, we’re talking about) without hinting at their meaning. I’d left too many of them to be guessed at in context – and mostly, their guesses were indeed correct. Even though their guesses were on the mark, I realized the intellectual anxiety they had in tracking the meanings would be a drag on their reading. So I had to address it.

As I worked on it, trying to weave in definitions of my “new words” without using the Hammer of Exposition, I was also paying attention to how I was building my descriptions. The critique group had praised this aspect of my writing. So I was trying to be objective and figure out what I was doing (right) that my friend was not.

One thing I noticed is that I like to try and establish a general sense of place first. The general atmosphere, and if a character is present, how that character is reacting to the setting. After that, every description serves to reinforce the over-all sense, often by contrast. The opening sequence of the novel is set in the quiet of pre-dawn, outside of residences. But to enhance the sense of quiet, many of the descriptions are of small sounds – the sorts of things one would not notice during daytime when many people are out and about. Things like the sound of soft-soled boots moving on stone (which is a really soft sound, as I learned back when I frequently wore moccasins).

I also tried to vary from the “adjective plus noun” descriptions. Oh, they are there. I don’t think you can entirely get away from them in the English language. But some of them I also tried to turn into noun / verb constructions. Metaphors and similes were also tools I put to use. But it is all laid in on some bones of plain prose. Grass is just grass. Stones are just stones. It is the blend of bare words with loaded description that creates the mix.

Now, I would be the first to admit that I am capable of some deeply purple prose. I’ve certainly gotten better at toning down the overly-rich descriptions. After all, I don’t want to put my readers into an insulin shock from too much description. But after going over my friend’s draft, I’ve come to realize that bare bones with no meat isn’t the only problem alternative to “too much cake”: you could also have a “safe” amount of cake that had turned to dry crumbs and fallen apart.

The point of this lesson? Gee, this writing stuff is hard.
😀

Comments

sartorias – Oct. 22nd, 2009

I’ve found that sometimes description (and exposition) lapses into a general voice, or reporter’s tone, separate from the voice of the rest of the narrative–which can cause the eye to skim.

But getting outside of all these things enough to see one’s own efforts is a toughie!

scribblerworks – Oct. 22nd, 2009

I agree that getting to that objective point isn’t easy. I had to let a couple of weeks go by before I tackled the groups notes. Even though I could see their points at the time of our meeting, I couldn’t sit down with the manuscript right away for the revisions.

It is a lot of work to get the exposition woven into the flow of the story. But I’m keen to avoid those sudden stops for encyclopedia-type exposition of things, places and events.

corrinalaw – Oct. 23rd, 2009

A good friend once told me that “setting is character.” Meaning that the setting is unique to however the character perceives the world. It took that to get through to me and I stopped trying to put the characters in “space” as it were and instead just settled far deeper in POV so not only did the character see what was around them but they had an emotional reaction to it as well.

It’s not just a “richly appointed office,” it becomes a richly appointed office like one she should have. Or one she thinks she’ll never deserve. Or one that she’s been in many times and always hates it.

Again, basic, and probably stuff you already know but I have to keep reminding myself of this often as I write.

scribblerworks – Oct. 23rd, 2009

Exactly. My feeling about it is that the reader rides on a character’s reaction to the environment. So the description needs to assist that.

But the author paying attention is the first order of business.

Posted in Writing | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment