Scoring Central

Full Version: Strands of Darkness
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
OK, language question again. Or more like a language reflection.

Ever since I learned English back in middle school or something, I've always believed that "frown" is simply the face you make when you wrinkle your forehead. I've never actually made the connection that a frown is an angry grimace. But it appears that is a very common definition of the word if you look it up. From my perspective (which might very well be wrong, of course) a frown might be due to confusion, concentration or any number of things but I don't necessarily associate it with outright anger or displeasure. In my mind, it's more neutral than that.

I've noticed I use the word a lot in my writing so I might as well ask. My characters may be flawed but I don't want them to seem like complete psychos, making angry faces all the time.
(08-18-2019, 12:39 AM)Mattias Westlund Wrote: [ -> ]OK, language question again. Or more like a language reflection.

Ever since I learned English back in middle school or something, I've always believed that "frown" is simply the face you make when you wrinkle your forehead. I've never actually made the connection that a frown is an angry grimace. But it appears that is a very common definition of the word if you look it up. From my perspective (which might very well be wrong, of course) a frown might be due to confusion, concentration or any number of things but I don't necessarily associate it with outright anger or displeasure. In my mind, it's more neutral than that.

I've noticed I use the word a lot in my writing so I might as well ask. My characters may be flawed but I don't want them to seem like complete psychos, making angry faces all the time.

You're correct. One can indeed "frown angrily," or "frown upon" something they don't approve of. But it's usually stipulated directly or via context that the frown is intended to communicate anger or displeasure. I haven't found your use of the word to be confusing or jarring in any way throughout the drafts. I'd mention it if I did.
(08-18-2019, 01:56 AM)Nayrb Wrote: [ -> ]You're correct. One can indeed "frown angrily," or "frown upon" something they don't approve of. But it's usually stipulated directly or via context that the frown is intended to communicate anger or displeasure. I haven't found your use of the word to be confusing or jarring in any way throughout the drafts. I'd mention it if I did.

Well that's good to hear, thanks Smile
I've read through chapter 2 so far. I'm not reading in "editing" mode right now, more looking for how well the story and characters develop. I think the pacing is nice; it feels like you tightened things up a bit. I'm liking the exposition provided by Jen in chapter 2, as well.
Thanks, yes I do belive that I've managed to provide a bit more detail compared to the first draft. When I first wrote chapter 2 I had no clear idea exactly what was going on, so there's been a lot of edits like that in the early chapters.
Just a stylistic question to anyone who's read this:

How would you feel if the POV's in book 2 were largely or completely different? Meaning, all the main characters will return, exept not as POV characters. E.g. I might use Praen as a POV instead of Lilian etc. Would that be weird?

The reason I'm asking is that I'm wrestling with the issue of having main characters that know very little of what's going on, forcing me to come up with ways to deliver exposition which feels contrived more often than not. It would be nice to be able to tell the story (or at least parts of the story) from the perspective of someone who knows a bit more.
(08-23-2019, 06:42 AM)Mattias Westlund Wrote: [ -> ]Just a stylistic question to anyone who's read this:

How would you feel if the POV's in book 2 were largely or completely different? Meaning, all the main characters will return, exept not as POV characters. E.g. I might use Praen as a POV instead of Lilian etc. Would that be weird?

The reason I'm asking is that I'm wrestling with the issue of having main characters that know very little of what's going on, forcing me to come up with ways to deliver exposition which feels contrived more often than not. It would be nice to be able to tell the story (or at least parts of the story) from the perspective of someone who knows a bit more.

It is somewhat unusual. But it's not unprecedented. Steven Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen, a ten-book series, alternated between two very large ensemble casts for the first four books before introducing a third very large ensemble cast for the fifth book and then for the next five drawing them together - casts of dozens, such that in the end, a fan who read all the books was able to tally the total number of viewpoint characters at 344, if I remember right.. (Though of course some of these were viewpoints used for only a few paragraphs, maybe a few pages.)

There's also a common technique of carrying over a few viewpoints between books, with certain ones removed or added for each. Daniel Abraham's The Long Price Quartet, of which the last book of it is the only writing that has ever made me cry, had two main characters whose viewpoints carried through each book of the quartet, alongside two unique viewpoint characters for each book of the quartet besides the last book, which used only the viewpoints of those two main characters. Elizabeth Bear does something similar in her Eternal Sky trilogy.
(08-24-2019, 02:03 AM)Terry93D Wrote: [ -> ]There's also a common technique of carrying over a few viewpoints between books, with certain ones removed or added for each. Daniel Abraham's The Long Price Quartet, of which the last book of it is the only writing that has ever made me cry, had two main characters whose viewpoints carried through each book of the quartet, alongside two unique viewpoint characters for each book of the quartet besides the last book, which used only the viewpoints of those two main characters. Elizabeth Bear does something similar in her Eternal Sky trilogy.

Yes, after some consideration I think I'll probably do something like this. The same way as Strands of Darkness is in large part Rynn's story (since she is the catalyst for many events in the book), the second book will mainly focus on Olvan. At least I think so at this point.

Thanks for the advice!
(08-24-2019, 02:03 AM)Terry93D Wrote: [ -> ]It is somewhat unusual. But it's not unprecedented. Steven Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen, a ten-book series, alternated between two very large ensemble casts for the first four books before introducing a third very large ensemble cast for the fifth book and then for the next five drawing them together - casts of dozens, such that in the end, a fan who read all the books was able to tally the total number of viewpoint characters at 344, if I remember right.. (Though of course some of these were viewpoints used for only a few paragraphs, maybe a few pages.)

I read the ten books of the main series. It's pretty intense. I have not read any of the other books in the Malazan world, though. There are quite a few. And with two authors they come out at double the rate.

The number of characters and perspectives is pretty astounding.
(11-08-2018, 11:07 PM)bigcat1969 Wrote: [ -> ]This Hobb book also makes me think about such things. I'm not sure if I like it or not. It is something of a fictional autobiography in a medieval quasi-fantasy world. It is first person and long on characterization, solid world building in a smallish world and mostly so far a single city, but often frankly boring. An interesting experiment that certain has sold well.

Bit of an OT thing here, but:

I picked up Assassin's Apprentice at a thrift shop earlier this week and read it in like two or three days. Been a long time since I found myself so captivated by a book that I didn't want to put it down. I didn't find it boring at all, in fact it was refreshing with a relatively modern (1995) fantasy novel that harkens back to the great fantasy of the sixties and seventies like Ursula Le Guin's Earhsea books and Patricia A. McKillip's Riddle-Master trilogy. No big world-altering plots and high fantasy tropes, just a ton of great characters and a world that is so detailed and real-feeling you can almost smell it. I absolutely must get hold of the rest of the Farseer trilogy now. This is very inspiring stuff.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24