Having gotten several of these for christmas, with more on the way, I thought that I would post some reviews of them here. First one being a caution more than a recomendation.
I just put down Self-Editing for Fiction Writers by Renni Browne and Dave King in some of the greatest amount of frustration ever. The whole book can be summarised in the three words: show, not tell. Every suggestion they have can pretty much be trailed back to this.
The only value I can seem to get from this text, is how editors tend to think, which I hope (for them) is emphatically not industry standard. "Well, that's the way things used to be done," they will say, "but we don't do that anymore." Sadly, they seem to treat common practice as some form of sacred cow, unable to be challenged, and stifling creativity of all kinds. Gods forbid that, I don't know, we actually try to push boundaries, or experiment with different styles; it's enough to drive an aspiring author, after reading them, into self-publication, and having friends edit their work.
Having been on a down note, there are two ones I can recomend with a clear conscience, both by Orson Scott Card. One of them, How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy, is the one that got me started. It's a small, thin book from the Writer's Digest - only 140 pages - but it is, nevertheless, a interesting and helpfull read. It is, quite frankly, one of the most usefull books I've ever read; and it's one flaw is the admitedly lesser amount of material on characters and viewpoint.
I would even recomend this one to people not in the genres of Science Fiction and Fantasy. True, you have to ignore the sections on things like aliens, interstellar travel, technology, and magic - but aside from that, Card still has lots of usefull things to say.
With good reason: Card has already dealt with that at length in Characters and Viewpoint, part of the Digest's Elements of Fiction Writing series, and another I want to recomend to everyone; on the strength of that book alone, I just got their volume Description as well. It's only slightly longer (182 pages), but is damned usefull.
- Login to post comments
Post to Twitter
Writing Book Reviews
I wish to add four new reviews, briefly, of some books which have now arrived; as part of the end of my christmas, mom gave me a sum to spend at amazon, which went to fleshing out my writing library, wanting to take this seriously again. This means that I can now provide some more information than before on a few usefull works.
A Field Guide to Demons, Fairies, Fallen Angels, and Other Subversive Spirits by Carol and Dinah Mack is the first one. It is long enough, to be sure; but it is still usefull. It isn't quite as large as one might hope - there are some 50-60 demons et al profiled, including the Djinn, Tiamet, Azazel, Satan, Yukki-Onna, and Bori. The organisation is by domain: Water, Fire, Earth, Air, Domicle, and Psyche.
All in all, interesting, and possibly to inspire further ideas.
Two reference books by Carol Rose are recomended as well: Giants, Monsters & Dragons and Spirits, Faeries, Leprachauns, and Goblins are the two. There's some overlap (Jinn appears in both, for instance), but you will find enough of a difference between them to justify both - and even on similar entries, you may find some with more detail (Hippogrif comes to mind).
The Writer's Complete Fantasy Reference is the last one I got and looked through, from the Writer's Digest. As such, it's not as extremly complete as one might expect; but it does have a little something on everything. But there aren't just sections on creatures and magic in here; there's information on Dress, Arms, Castles, and both World and Traditional Fantasy cultures. Another good source, mainly for ideas.
Writing Book Reviews
Ok, adding yet another review.
We all know I know I have issues with description. It's always been the one thing laking, with the result that I tend to use narrative to get posts to a longer length. Well... one of the books I got is Descritpion by Monica Wood.
While not having gotten through it, it's already prooving to be a rather usefull book - mainly because it points out things that should be rather subtle ones you can do in writing with description, but which will never the less contribute to prose on a subconcious level. Not that she puts it like this, but nevertheless, it is proving to be a helpfull read. One nice thing: the common "show, don't tell" guidline is not discussed until the second chapter, and isn't crucial to the text.
Writing Book Reviews
I'm most of the way through The Complete Guide to Writing Fantasy now, an anothology edited by Darin Park and Tom Dullemond. There's a lot of usefull stuff in there, including chapters on race creation, magic, and a few on characters. There's a chapter on plot which I honestly skipped, due to having read enough on that already.
However, I suspect that three chapters would be usefull for all of us: Arms and Armour, Combat, and Martial Arts and Fantasy.
Writing Book Reviews
Having gotten through the arms and armour section, a few things occur to me. Just because they would be usefull, and seem worth passing on. Also a few random thoughts about writing at the end of this.
Armour: Always remember that any suit of armour needs padding under it. Why? It stops you from getting slashed open, but without padding, you get to die a few days later from shock. An excersise paraphrased from The Complete Guide to Writing Fantasy:
Arms, repeat after me: I do not fire my crossbow. I loose it.
Broadswords slash and hack. Rapiers slice.
A thought from Orson Scott Card: "When concealment is what the author sets out to do, concealment is all the author can accomplish." Yes, that's a direct quote. What brings this up is getting Jennifer hooked on Buffy, and her remark that "Joss Wheedon needs to get over his surprise fetish."
It's a general thing worth considering that concealment and surprise, while it can contribute to a story, will also limit the story. Every bit of information concealed from the audience cannot be used in telling the story. Card's example of this was a story he read about a man giving directions to a woman, where we only find out at the end that they are lovers.
The result? A story that was bland and dry. When it could have been a mileau story about places the man and woman had visited; or a character story about their relationship.
Just something that we should all keep in mind. Concealment both can and will limit us. It's not always bad, but surprise isn't always the route to go.
There are no rules, only guidelines, even with grammar. This is probably the biggest thing I'm picking up on. Every time an author on how to write sets out a rule, they immediately say that there are times when breaking it is justified and helps. The key is that it's not overdone. Even bad grammar can communicate information about characters when done in description.
Even "avoid cliches" or "avoid repetition" are just guidlines. They sometimes become usefull - like in writing satire or parody. The key guidlines in breaking the rules seem to be that you don't break too many at once or too often, but even then there might be a reason you gleefully break one regularly and obviously.
Writing Book Reviews
Thanks for the review. I own the Writer's Complete Fantasy Reference. I can just see the authors of that book finishing it, then having to come up with a title. "What?" they say. "The Complete Guide to Writing Fantasy is already taken? Aaargh!"
Tee-hee.
On the topic of writing guides and novels, I'm a fan of David Gerold. My review of his fantasy spiel is listed on Amazon.com. Scroll down (if you decide to read it) for my part.
Read My Review.
Writing Book Reviews
Thanks, Sid. That's another one that'll go on my list eventually. I definately do also have to recomend to you any of the Elements of Fiction Writing series in an area where you think you need help. Though some things are scattered through various books - they don't have one on dialogue.
But description has a chapter on description and dialogue, and Card has one dealing with it.
Incidentally, The Complete Guide to Writing Fantasy has something on it I just noticed. Volume 1. Incidentally, there also appears to be no Volume 2 out at the moment, though I have no idea what they would put in there. Maybe go more in-depth on one of the topics. There's always something more to be said.
One general rule of thumb I'm finding with these is that what you are trying to write has different conventions and styles. There's a reason I hate Self-Editing for Fiction Writers with a passion: it's geared towards "The Great American Novel." One of the reviewers is a romance author, who remarked that it really didn't help him for that reason.
Writing Book Reviews
Before I came to LABN, back when I thought I could hack it as a writer, I'd read every book on writing fiction there was (and I think they took me from a crappy writer to a mere adequate writer). Yes, the Elements series is known to me. I've owned most of them. I myself highly recommend this one to any young writer who wants well-put, well-rounded advice. How to Tell a Story is actually the opposite of the Elements series, which centers on each topic individually.
My review is the first one.
Writing Book Reviews
I have now, thanks to doing a course, been assigned a text to read. Perhaps my new-found hatred of Stephen Minot is due to the fact that his is the first book on writing I've been reading due to assignment rather than volition. However, this consitutes a warning: avoid like the plaugue his Three Genres: The Writing of Poetry, Fiction, and Drama. My comments will refer to the Fiction section.
Let's start with his use of "simple" and "sophisticated." One gets the feeling, quite quickly, that Minot is one of those people who seems to believe that the best writing is "literature." One need to only look at his constant linking of such things as "simple" with "Mass Market Paperbacks" and "Forumula Plots."
Minot, I'm convinced, is someone who writes what he likes. Which is fair enough: no writer should, in attempting to write, work on something that fails to interest them, since if the story doesn't interest you, how can you write anything which is interesting to read?
The level of arrogance contained in his "7 Fiction Sins" is, however, by far one of the most high-and-mighty lists I've yet to read. Any good points he has are drowned out by what one can only assume to be saying, "Don't do anything the commercial market finds popular." Minot does not, I think, stop to consider that: (1) some authors would be comfortable in these areas naturally, or (2) that not everyone wants to read "literature." It is made worse only by his earlier insistence that "simple" and "sophisticated" contains no judgement of superiority, and by his neutral tone; I would almost have more respect for him if he were writing deliberatly snobbish.
Ok, that's out of my system. :)