insert optional subject here
Jun. 30th, 2004 11:35 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ksmithFive day weekend coming up--I'm adding a couple of vacation days to the official holiday weekend.
Looking forward to the time off, even though home maintenance will most likely be committed. Mowed the backyard last night. Tonight, I'll let the pups play in the wading pool while I mow the front. Will need to at least try to install gutter covers. Boy, the excitement never stops.
Tossed my hat in the ring for another job opening. We'll see how that one goes.
Read SILENCE OF THE LAMBS last Sunday, and confirmed the sense that even in a thriller, depth of characterization matters. That isn't to say that books with lightly sketched characters don't sell--they do, and quite well in some cases. But from what I've seen, the memorable books, the ones folks talk about years later, contain characters that fix their attention. I was reminded of this as I read the verbal exchanges between Clarice and Hannibal, the scenes with Jack Crawford and his dying wife. Action alone can work, and quite well, too. The bestseller lists are filled with proof of that. But I'm convinced that characterization is what keeps most readers coming back. Character is what you remember.
At least, it's what I remember.
At this point, writing has become the opportunity for my characters to surprise me, to deviate from the outline and show me what they really plan to do. It's an interactive exercise, in a way. I've been following discussions in sartorias's blog, and wondering exactly how I fit in. Do I see my stories unfold as movies, with me as a viewer, or do my characters speak through me? I've tentatively concluded that I'm more of an observer, a visual writer,
simply because I have had plotlines derail so often because my characters wouldn't do what I wanted them to do. I would think that if they spoke through me, I would have more of a connection with them, and they wouldn't surprise me like they do. Maybe I need to think about this some more.
Looking forward to the time off, even though home maintenance will most likely be committed. Mowed the backyard last night. Tonight, I'll let the pups play in the wading pool while I mow the front. Will need to at least try to install gutter covers. Boy, the excitement never stops.
Tossed my hat in the ring for another job opening. We'll see how that one goes.
Read SILENCE OF THE LAMBS last Sunday, and confirmed the sense that even in a thriller, depth of characterization matters. That isn't to say that books with lightly sketched characters don't sell--they do, and quite well in some cases. But from what I've seen, the memorable books, the ones folks talk about years later, contain characters that fix their attention. I was reminded of this as I read the verbal exchanges between Clarice and Hannibal, the scenes with Jack Crawford and his dying wife. Action alone can work, and quite well, too. The bestseller lists are filled with proof of that. But I'm convinced that characterization is what keeps most readers coming back. Character is what you remember.
At least, it's what I remember.
At this point, writing has become the opportunity for my characters to surprise me, to deviate from the outline and show me what they really plan to do. It's an interactive exercise, in a way. I've been following discussions in sartorias's blog, and wondering exactly how I fit in. Do I see my stories unfold as movies, with me as a viewer, or do my characters speak through me? I've tentatively concluded that I'm more of an observer, a visual writer,
simply because I have had plotlines derail so often because my characters wouldn't do what I wanted them to do. I would think that if they spoke through me, I would have more of a connection with them, and they wouldn't surprise me like they do. Maybe I need to think about this some more.
