In Honor of Grandparents

I’m very sad to say that last week, my beloved grandmother passed away. It wasn’t much of a surprise; she was 90 years old, and several factors had indicated that she was finally ready to move on. But still, I really miss her already. Love you, Grandmommy.

In fiction, grandparents seem to fall into three categories: crazy wacky senior citizens, old and wise wizards (Merlin, Gandalf), or automatic wisdom dispensers (put in a coin, get a life lesson!). But especially this week, I wish for more nuance.

Here are a few stories where characters of older years get better, more detailed treatment.

Terry Pratchett has Cohen the Barbarian and his team. All are well past the age of 80. Sounds like they’d be easily beat, right? Well, let’s put it this way: of all the fights and wars that mercenaries face, all the challenges from evil wizards and young upstart barbarians… these are the guys that lived to 90. Plus, Cohen has diamonds for teeth. Take that, dentures!
(Edit: Completely forgot to add Granny Weatherwax and Nanny Ogg, witches extraordinnare).

There is, of course, Howl’s Moving Castle. Sophie is a young woman transformed into an older woman, but I love the way she reacts to the change. Instead of getting upset, she takes the chance to speak her mind, and finally express her opinions.

There’s also John Scalzi’s series, which begins with Old Man’s War. I love the idea of the book, that the government specifically pulls those sixty-five and older into their military, because who better to be fighters than those with decades of life experience? (They get new bodies to better fight hand-to-hand).

I also loved the grandma in Roald Dahl’s book The Witches. I don’t remember her name, but she was wonderful.

At FFO, we have two stories that feature older characters in the main role:  Irma Spinklebottom’s Recipe for Cold Fusion, and Star Maven.

I’m sure I’ve barely scratched the surface here – I haven’t even gotten into TV or movie characters! (Shepherd Book, for instance (“::sigh:: I never married”)). 

Who are your favorite grandparent characters?

How to Find an Awesome Beta

I’ve been going over my critiques that I’ve gotten on my novel I’m trying to get ready to query, and I am so amazed at how insightful and brilliant these suggestions are.  Really, how can anyone do this writing thing without some brilliant critiquers (is that a word)?

I think it is important to find the right people to be your readers especially if you want them to read an entire novel.  That’s a lot of work and time for a person to give to you, and if they aren’t helpful, then you’ve only wasted theirs and your time.  And I’m not saying that you need to find someone who only showers you with praise or only makes suggestions you agree with or that you are obligated to use all of their advice, only that you need to find someone who understands what kind of story you are trying to tell and can see where it is and isn’t working. 

Here are a few things to look for in a critique partner

1.       Someone who is your target audience.  This is really important because if the critiquer doesn’t even like the genre you’re writing or understand it, they may be giving you the wrong advice.  They may not understand the conventions of the genre or try to push your story in a direction that it shouldn’t go.  You need someone who would very likely pick up your book in the bookstore. 

2.      Someone who reads.  Sheena did a post on that mythical creature, a writer who doesn’t read, which was hilarious, and I am sure there are some shiny exceptions, but I think it is safe to say that someone who doesn’t read wouldn’t make a good critiquer.  Movies and novels do have a lot of story-telling similarities, but there are a lot of differences too.  You are better off with someone who knows how novels work.

 3.  Someone who is honest even when it hurts.  Honesty really is the best policy.  I don’t think I need to say more.

4.   Someone who is encouraging.  Yes it is great to have someone so insightful that they can tear your story to shreds and give you amazing ideas to rebuild it, but if they don’t send you home with a lollipop or two to help nurse those wounds, I think they can discourage you from continuing on.  I’m not asking for someone to just sing praises, but they should be able and willing to point out the good along with the bad.

So how do you find a beta reader who fits all of these requirements?

This is how I found my amazing critiquers.

1.    Become a fan of an aspiring writer.  I’ve spent a lot of time reading snippets of writing on the writing forum Hatrack River.  There were several writers who always impressed me.  I always found myself wanting to read more of what they wrote.  I kept my eye on these writers, and whenever they asked for a critique, I’d volunteer.  I know there was a selfish, self-serving motive behind it even though I really did want to read their stories.  I did hope that at some point they would be willing to swap manuscripts with me.  My thinking was that if I was their intended audience then they might be mine.   And it worked.  I managed to get Sheena to be my first official beta reader (or maybe she was an alpha), and she was an awesome critiquer, and her insights were invaluable.   So Sheena, I may be your first official fan/stalker.  Online only.  :)

2.  Go fishing in a critique group (online or in person).  I joined an online critique group on Absolute Write.  It is still going strong today even though I’m no longer participating.  It was a lot of work, but way worth it.  I just don’t have that time to put into it anymore.  But it was a great place to test out beta readers.  I got to read a little sampling of what they wrote and how they critiqued, and then I sent out encouraging e-mails just to test the waters to see if they were receptive.  And that is how I found Sarah.  :)  She gave my submission a very thorough and insightful critique, and then blew me away with her submission.  But I’m not sure if I’m Sarah’s first official fan because everyone in that crit group loved her writing, but I’m going to name myself the president.

 3.   Just get involved and have fun.  Hatrack River is a great forum.  They have lots of contests (opening hooks, short stories, novel openings, etc).  If you get involved, you can get to know the other aspiring writers and their writing.  It is a great way to find writers to stalk, I mean admire.  I’ve got a couple future potential beta’s in my crosshairs from this. You know who you are, well, at least some of you do.

4.  Don’t forget to look close to home.    I’ve heard the advice of not using your friends and family as beta readers because they will only praise you.  Well, that is not always the case.  I have some pretty smart and well-read sisters who aren’t afraid to be honest with me as well as an amazing husband.  In some ways, they are tougher on me than any “stranger” has been.  So if there are people in your personal life that like to read the kind of books that you are writing, it may not hurt to ask them to beta for you.

I feel a little evil and self-serving in the post.  Yes, Melanie, that is how I can write villains (I’m half-evil).  I really think you should just relax and get involved in writers’ forums and don’t worry about finding a beta.  You can learn a ton and have a lot of fun.  But if you keep your eyes open, you may be as lucky as I was, and get a few amazing beta readers while you’re at it.

Thanks guys for everything.  You really are the best.  :)

~MaryAnn

Creating A Villain

Not all villains are a single person.
(The flag of the Alliance; Firefly)

This post wasn't even remotely what I had in mind for this week's blog topic. It wasn't what I wanted. It wasn't what I was interested in. But, at 6:15 this morning, I realized it was what I needed.

See, I was hoping to start writing a new book this week. It wasn't that I had any genius ideas burning in my head. Instead, it was because I was obsessing over this project that I was supposed to be letting rest, and I couldn't seem to force myself to focus on the project I was supposed to be working on. SO...my great idea was to start writing SOMETHING ELSE.

With that (and unfortunately nothing else) in my mind, I started researching How To Create A Plot, and it didn't take long before I found this genius site. Actually, this is a post about outlining your plot, which is a different creature entirely from creating a plot, but it's kind of amazing how the two things intertwine.

The villain in Chuck
(Daniel Shaw)

In a nutshell, Glen Strathy's premise is that the very first thing you need is a Story Goal, which is the thing your main character is trying to accomplish. The second thing you need is a Consequence, which is the negative thing that will happen if the Story Goal is not achieved. Or--important distinction here--what the main character THINKS will happen if the story goal is not achieved.

Step 3, Requirements, is basically a checklist of things that have to happen in order for the reader to feel like your protagonist is getting closer to their goal, and Step 4 is Forewarnings, or events that happen that show that the consequence is also drawing near.

Voldemort from Harry Potter

I'm skipping a lot of good stuff here, including some important steps, so if this seems like an interesting way to plot, please go check out the blog post. As I started brainstorming plots using this method (which was not really created for brainstorming plots, I get that. But it works!)  I came up with some really interesting ideas. My Story Goal was pretty easy to come up with: My character wants to find a way back to her family. There are a zillion other stories out there with the same Story Goal. What makes it different are the details--Why isn't she already with her family? Where is she? Who is keeping her from being at home?

These are the questions that complicate everything, and soon enough, my mind was stalled in the exact same spot it stalls with every book I've ever written. The villain. It's like I get there, and realize there's a whole other story that needs to get told, or maybe even two. While my characters are busy with the minutia of their lives, there are politics unfolding, wars happening, and a million other things I need to know about if I'm going to create a villain, including my world's history, and his/her life story (if the villain is a person.)

Stories don't need a villain, but they do need a conflict. Your character might conflict with another character (villainous or otherwise), with nature, with society, or with himself. For better or for worse, I'm lumping all of these things into the word 'villain'.

The Wicked Witch of the West

Basically, my inability to see through my villain's eyes is what was keeping me from working on my original project, and so I'm shelving this new, shiny idea for now (it's got potential though, so you may see it again someday) and going back to the project I should have been working on all along.

In my experience, plotting my villain's story isn't much fun, but it still needs to be done, and Mr. Strathy's Plot Outline steps seem like a great way to do it. I'll keep you posted. I'm hoping for nothing less than breaking through a wall that's been hindering me for nearly four years now.

Austenland!

Hooray for ham!*

One of my top three favorite Shannon Hale books (the other two being The Goose Girl and Book of a Thousand Days) has been born in movie form!

It's been a long gestation, but well worth the wait according to happy Sundance moviegoers - and Sony who just acquired it for $3,000,000.

But see, I'm getting ahead of myself.

Long, long ago, way back in 2008, Shannon Hale wrote a book.

Austenland is the tale of unlucky-in-love Jane Hayes who is stifled by an unhealthy obsession with Mr. Darcy, as played by Colin Firth. No man or relationship will ever measure up (this she knows - she even has all her past boyfriends numbered beginning with a grade school crush). When Jane is bequeathed a three-week vacation to an English resort based on Jane Austen's novels, she apprehensively accepts, determined to get Mr. Darcy, and truth-be-told, all men, out of her system forever. But once there, robed in chemises, pelisses, day dresses and spencer jackets, Jane finds herself swimming in deeper water than she expected. The gentlemen actors are scrumptious with their top hats and side burns, her fellow vacationers both hilarious and endearing, but what is she really looking for, and what does reality mean when you're in Austenland?

It's a great book that hits all the right notes on America's obsession with all things British in general (*ahem* Downton Abbey *ahem*) and Jane Austen in particular.

Not long after the writing of said novel, a couple of Shannon Hale's friends (Stephenie Meyer, a la Twilight, and Jerusha Hess, a la Napoleon Dynamite) got a hold of it and together they dreamed of making it into a movie.

In July 2011 Shannon announced on her website that their dream was going to become a reality. Shannon and Jerusha wrote the script, Stephenie's company produced, and Jerusha directed. I was going to link to some of the hilarious posts Shannon wrote from the set in England, but there are just too many. I highly suggest going to her site and just reading forward for a few weeks starting July 5, 2011.

The cast had a blast filming, and apparently the camaraderie came through on the celluloid (pixels?) as well. Austenland was picked up for release at Sundance, an honor in and of itself. And the audience and critical reaction at the sold out showings has be gratifyingly positive.

I can't wait for this to hit the regular theaters. What an awesome thing to happen to a fabulous writer!
You go, girl (and girls, including Stephenie and Jerusha).

What other books are on your wish list to become movies?

~ Susan

* "Hooray for ham" was the line that cracked me up today as I was rereading Austenland for the umpteenth time.

Downton Defense

Basically, if you haven't seen Downton Abby, go watch seasons one and two right now. It's available on Netflix.

Go on. I'll wait.

Welcome back. Obviously, you've seen seasons one and two, and so you won't be annoyed by the spoilers that are below. Carry on.

So yesterday, Trisha posted a great blog about how when you set the rules of the world of your story, you need to stick by them.

She outs Downton Abby in particular of breaking the rules, most clearly with the character Matthew Crawley's "I can never stand again. No wait... It's a miracle, let's dance." plot line.

I suggest you click on her post, because she makes some great points. It's a common fault for T.V. shows to present an obstacle, and then just drop it when it gets boring. The worst offender I can think of is Glee, where characters are despondently in love with one character one episode,  break up for a dumb reason the next, and then drop their hate just so they can sing a duet two episodes later. And don't get me started about how they never sing the same song more than once. I get why for a T.V. show the repetition is annoying, but as a real life choir dork, it strains believability.

And you can't stop believing.

But anyway. On topic. I have to defend Downton Abby, because the point Trisha raised is a huge one for me as a writer.

Season two of Downton Abby has Matthew just returned injured from war. The Doctor says there is a chance that he could recover, but most likely he will never be able to stand again. He won't be able to walk, to run, or... most importantly, he won't ever be able to have children.

This is a big problem, because as the heir, his child (if it's a boy) will inherit a huge fortune. And it's not just the vast amount of money, and properties that the child would inherit, it's the history of it that's important.  The tradition. And don't forget who the fortune came from, Cora's American money, Lady Grantham's traditional money. Above all of that, what's most important is the name.

 Lady Mary has been raised her entire life under the knowledge that she is entitled to a better life then others because of the name she was born into. Imagine the kind of self delusion necessary to live surrounded by people you like or love ( like Carson, Ana, etc.) who live feet from you yet in a completely different world. How can you justify that without giving the thing that separates you (i.e. family name and money) an enormous amount of importance.

Mary loves Matthew, but has lost him now more than once because of her need to prove the weight of her family's name. And now, here he is, in a wheel chair, engaged to someone else who will care for him more patiently than she would. By all tradition she should let him go. If she marries someone else and has a son, then she will carry on "the family show" the way she'd been born to do.

And then Matthew stands.

I love that, that shot in the dark that scatters the ducks. For me, it's not because it breaks the rules that this moment stands out, it's because it reinforces my most important opinion/rule of writing. Always scatter the ducks. Always go for the thing that changes a path, because a story ends once the path is set.

Yes, I see how it is jumping the shark for him to recover, and I'd be right by Trisha's side, complaining about lazy writers breaking their own rules, except that long before he stands, the doctor says that there's a chance that he will recover. By that one comment, the doctor put the dueling pistols onto the mantle.

But even if he didn't, I think I'd still be willing to look the other way, because to me it's not about the rule or the expectation of the audience that they are breaking, it's about the test the characters are going through.  If you are going to test a character, and change them emotionally, prove themselves morally, or just hold a character over a fire, there is a segment of your audience who will stay by you, just to watch the characters squirm.

Not everyone will stay, but I probably will.

Trisha brings up the Spanish influenza story line as another example, and yes, it seems improbable that the only person who died from it, was the obstacle in the way between Mary and Matthew. But hey, it's a love story. Obstacles have to be removed somehow. And the creators go to great lengths to say that historically that's how it happened, it was just when a person seemed recovered that they were at their most dangerous stage.

Yes, I did watch the PBS specials.

There are a few other times when the writers suggest a treat or a threat, and then take it back, but for every "We're going to lose Downton", there's a punch that's not pulled. Characters die. Love stories end. Characters are pronounced guilty. Consequences happen, though usually the upstairs gets off lighter than those in servant's garb. But that's kind of the way with it, now isn't it?

Downton Abby, to me is all about the rules, and the traditions of polite society. The show is about  the fairness and impracticality of rules; from Matthew, a distant relation inheriting all the money, and not Lady Mary, because he's male, to the rules of conduct between the upstairs and the downstairs, to the unfairness of Lady Mary's affair compared to the maid Ethel's consequences for the same level of mistake.

I think writers can take notice to some of these rules. For example, a writer with a "name" can break a rule and survive just fine, but a lowly writer could break the same rules and have a huge fall out. Also, yes sometimes success can happen for someone else, even though by all accounts, it should have come to you instead. Speak up about it, or else marry the person who stole your opportunity. ( Downton suggest's that's fine).

If you can give me a character that I love, like Lady Grantham, or Walter Bishop, or Kristina Braveman, or Matrim, or Gen, or Katniss, then you can break any rule you want to, and I'll stick along for the ride.

The main reason, however, that I'm going to keep watching isn't because of the soap opera characters in Jane Austen clothing. It's not because of the seeping slow minutia of the lives and growth of the characters, or the picturesque landscapes, the house itself, or the amazing costumes.

 I will continue to watch for Lady Grantham.

That Dame Maggie is a treasure.

~Sheena

Breaking the OTHER Set of Rules

Every Sunday night, two television shows record on my DVR.  These shows could not be more different.  Once Upon a Time (which I've blogged about before) is set in a modern day town, peopled by various fairy tale characters.  Every episode features two plot lines: the lives of the modern day characters, and a flashback to their lives before they were transported from their world to ours.  I've said it before and I'll say it again--I love this show.

The other program I record on Sunday is Downton Abbey.  PBS fans will likely know the series, which is set between the years 1912 and 1921 in the Yorkshire countryside of England.  If this is the first you've heard of the show, I have to warn you spoilers are coming, though I'll try to keep them at a minimum.

There is one thing that ties these shows together for me, and I probably only noticed it because they air on the same night, so I end up watching them back to back the next day.  Like all stories, they both have to follow their own rules.  In Once Upon a Time, magic cannot exist in Storybrooke, Maine.  That is the entire reason the evil queen transported the fairy tale characters to our world.  She brought them to a place where they could not rebel, and then took away their memories, creating a version of life that suited her.

Downton has its own set of rules.  The plot follows the Earl of Grantham, his family, and the people that serve them.  Life in an English manner house in the early 1900s was extremely structured.  Clothes had to be changed several times a day, women had to be chaperoned when visiting with men, servants had to keep the house running without being seen by the family.  Everything was done just so, with attention to both detail and propriety poured into every aspect of daily life.

The first season, for each show, was mostly about setting up for later conflict.  Now that both shows are a few seasons in, some of those carefully laid out rules--the rules that govern the plot and character existence--are starting to come undone.  (Here's your spoiler alert.  Look away!)

In Once Upon a Time, magic has made its way to Storybrooke.  It started out small enough, with Regina crushing the huntsman's heart, or finding a loophole that allowed her to pull a poison apple through from the old world.  At the end of season 1, Emma kisses Henry and the magic of true love wakes him from Regina's spell.  Not long after, Rumpelstiltskin finds a way to bring all magic into Storybrooke, which means season 2 has been filled with every kind of rule-breaking imaginable.

People who died in one episode turn out to be alive in the next.  Emma and Snow White become trapped in the fairy tale world, with no hope of return, and yet after several episodes of searching and fighting, they find a way home.  Regina promises never to use magic again, but within an episode or two, she's back at it.  Rumple makes similar promises to Belle, but breaks them almost in the same breath.  In fact the only thing you can count on anymore is when a character says "This is never going to happen," it'll probably happen next week.

It might sound like a lot of backhanded storytelling, and I suppose it is.  Here's why it works, in my mind anyway.  Once Upon a Time is a fast-paced story.  Because you flip between the present and past, you get a more rounded idea of who these characters are.  It's also pretty normal for the characters to be embroiled in a physical fight in one era, while struggling with an emotional war in the other.  It helps keep the plot from feeling stuck.  It's the changes themselves, though, that usually set this pace.  When you think you have a grasp on what's happening, or how the world works, someone throws a wrench into the gears.

However, the writers always ensure the changes are plausible.  Magic isn't possible in Storybrooke because of a curse, but as the first season unfolds, it becomes more and more evident that Emma is going to break that curse.  And once the curse is lifted, all bets are off.  It's no wonder then that they start to find fairy dust, or that Rumpelstiltskin's previously worthless antiques start to exhibit strange new properties.

My only criticism is how often rules are set and then broken.  Most recently, a character crossed the town line.  In the first episode of season 2, the writers laid down a rule: anyone that crosses will lose their memory of their fairy tale life.  I suspect the rule was put in place for two reasons.  One, to keep the characters contained, and therefore keep the story on track, and two, to make it a gut-wrenching moment when this character fell over the barrier.  They will never regain who they are--something the character's love interest pointed out with great pain.  And yet, having spent as long as I have with this story, I'm not buying that for one moment.

The solution will be plausible--magic, true love, whatever they come up with, will fit with the story enough that it'll pass.  The writers are too smart to have an easy solution on hand right away.  The characters are going to suffer, and struggle.  Sacrifices will be made, but in the end they'll find a cure for this unfixable memory loss.

This false suspense is okay in small doses, and forgivable when the solution is plausible.  But what about when the writers just cram something in to tie up whatever plot line they're struggling with?  What happens when you break the rules of your world for no good reason?

Enter season 2 and 3 of Downton Abbey.

In season 1, the audience was given a very intimate look at life within the Grantham household.  Sibling rivalry, scandal, even housemaids with a grudge all had their moment in the story.  All the rules were set, and when they were broken, the offenders were met with consequences.  Mary's adventure with Mr. Pamuk had particularly dire consequences for most of season 1 and all of season 2.  It was season 2 that really dropped the ball, though.

Matthew, heir to the current Lord Grantham, sustains an injury in the second season which, according to the doctor, will leave him crippled for the rest of his life.  His miraculous recovery is never given a satisfactory explanation.  In fact, the doctor merely shrugs his shoulders and sweeps the whole thing under the rug.  Later in the season, several of the characters catch Spanish flu.  Again, most make another miraculous recovery, and the one character who dies does so unexpectedly.  I'm not sure I want to be sick under Dr. Clarkson's watch.  Seems to me every time he gives a diagnosis, it goes the other way.  (Is this some kind of foreshadowing for poor Mrs. Hughes?  I hope not.)

Season 3 is driving me crazy.  Lord Grantham swore he'd never allow his runaway daughter Cybil and her less-than-respectable husband to visit Downton, and yet the season kicks off with them staying for several episodes.  Lord Grantham also lost basically every penny he owns and faces ruin, but of course an unexpected inheritance for Matthew means they can keep their home, and fortune, if only Matthew would get over himself and accept it.

There are so many convenient, hardly plausible events that pop up in the latter seasons of Downton Abbey.  It's almost as though the writers threw up whatever obstacles they could think of, and when they got tired of them, they magically went away.  If it had only happened once, maybe twice, I think I could overlook it.  But it happens constantly, and it's getting out of hand.  I'm ready for this season to be over, and while I hear there will be another season in production soon, I'm not totally sure I want to watch it.

It doesn't matter if the world you're building is complete fantasy or if it's set smack dab in the middle of your hometown.  There are always going to be rules you have to follow.  If your character is blind, she can't regain her sight just in time solve a murder simply because it's convenient to the plot.  If your character loses all his money at a game of craps and he's wandering through the street destitute and hungry, he'd better have a good reason for finding that million dollar lottery ticket.  Otherwise you're just slapping a band-aid on a problem you aren't ready to deal with.

If you find yourself doing this, I hope you'll take a step back and figure out why you've chosen this route, and start asking questions.  What other path could you have taken?  Maybe your character can use her other senses to solve the murder case, or your gambling addict will finally see he has a problem and start the slow path to recovery.  You can break your own rules, by all means, but not without a good reason or a lot of skill.

Better yet, maybe a little of both.

H.P. Lovecraft Has Some Writing Advice for You

This week, I was delighted to discover a link to H.P. Lovecraft’s advice for young writers, initially published in 1920 by The United Amateur. Shoutout to Grey Matter Press for the link. (I was perusing their facebook page to see if they had an update on response to submissions for the anthology I submitted to, and they do – lovely people!  ::tries not to obsessively check email::)

There's a lot of good stuff in there. I particularly like his advice on story structure: 

In developing a theme, whether descriptive or narrative, it is necessary that three structural qualities be present: Unity, Mass, and Coherence. Unity is that principle whereby every part of a composition must have some bearing on the central theme. It is the principle which excludes all extraneous matter, and demands that all threads converge toward the climax. 

Mass is that principle which requires the more important parts of a composition to occupy correspondingly important places in the whole composition, the paragraph, and the sentence…. According to this law, the end of a composition is its most important part, with the beginning next in importance.

Coherence is that principle which groups related parts together and keeps unrelated parts removed from one another.... It demands that kindred events be narrated without interruption, effect following cause in a steady flow.

Of course, not all the advice is current. See, for example, this line: “As a general rule, it is well to give close critical scrutiny to all colloquial phrases and expressions of doubtful parsing, as well as to all words and usages which have a strained or unfamiliar sound.”

Yes, Mr. Lovecraft, it is indeed "well" to give such scrutiny.

My other favorite part of that above quote is the mention of strained usages of words, which seems to be a constant in some modern writers of fantasy. (And yes, I am looking in the mirror as I say that. Must control urge to use all fancy words available!)

Other gems from the article:

On description:

Descriptions may be of objects, of places, of animals, and of persons. The complete description of an object may be said to consist of the following elements:1. When, where, and how seen; when made or found; how affected by time.2. History and traditional associations.3. Substance and manner of origin.4. Size, shape, and appearance.5. Analogies with similar objects.6. Sensations produced by contemplating it.7. Its purpose or function.8. Its effects—the results of its existence.

More on structure: 

In fictional narration, verisimilitude is absolutely essential. A story must be consistent and must contain no event glaringly removed from the usual order of things, unless that event is the main incident, and is approached with the most careful preparation. In real life, odd and erratic things do occasionally happen; but they are out of place in an ordinary story, since fiction is a sort of idealization of the average.

 On inspiration: 

“In many cases, the usage of good authors will be found a more effective guide than any amount of precept. A page of Addison or of Irving will teach more of style than a whole manual of rules, whilst a story of Poe’s will impress upon the mind a more vivid notion of powerful and correct description and narration than will ten dry chapters of a bulky textbook”

 I know that if I've been reading a lot of a particular author, it seems like I'll start to mirror some aspects of their writing even in my own thoughts. Anyone else do that?  And whose writing style would you like most to emulate? I'd like to be more like Patricia McKillip or Joseph Conrad, lyrical but not nonsensical.