Sorry not been around much - hope some appreciate why.

Anyway, got a printer for Christmas and printed out first chapters of the novel I'm looking to send out before the summer.

Trouble is, some of my prose is reading a little awkward on paper - more so than reading from PC.

I would therefore greatly appreciate comment on which of the following two passages works better:

Original

Only the light of distant stars broke the darkness, faint streaks from a supernova barely visible across the vast gulfs of space. From among the deepest shadows, an oblique crescent of sunlight formed on a deep blue gas giant, a scattered twinkling revealing narrow rings around its equator. The white-hot sphere of the local sun burned into view, its spreading illumination exposing the blue and white cloud formations across the massive ringed planet, a tiny red moon now also apparent

A myriad of tiny lights moved slowly across the receding shadow of the gas giant. They continued on until they broke into the solar glare, revealing themselves as part of the sleek silver bulk of the manta-class Battlecruiser Carandon. The starship cleared the great blue sphere, the blinding light of the sun streaming behind, the glittering sheen of the craft moving with a graceful silence towards the red moon. A small aperture opened in the side of the battleship and a silvered shuttle launched out.

The Battlecruiser Carandon rose on a tangent, making into a high orbit with a brief burst of light. The shuttle glided on, narrow flashes of prismatic colours emanating in slivers from its fore to its aft as it descended towards the red moon.

Edited

Only the light of distant stars broke the darkness across the vast gulfs of space. From among the deepest shadows, a thin crescent of sunlight slowly formed across a deep blue gas giant, narrow rings revealed around its equator. The white-hot sphere of the local sun burned into view, its spreading illumination exposing the blue and white cloud formations across the massive ringed planet.

A myriad of tiny lights moved slowly across the receding shadow of the gas giant, the sleek silver bulk of the manta-class Battlecruiser Carandon finally revealed in the solar glare. As it entered a high orbit, a shuttle was launched on an intercept vector towards a small red moon, narrow flashes of prismatic colours emanating in slivers from its fore to its aft.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

I'm a litte concerned that either the first it too cluttered - but also that the second isn't evocative enough.

(note to Kathleen - please do not edit down passages!)

I found the description really attractive and visual, but it was hard for me to care enough to focus on it, because I don't know whether I'll care about the story or not.

It seems to me (and of course this is arguable) that readers these days (myself included) are unlikely to be committed to a novel by a writer they don't know (or even often by a writer they do) until they feel satisfied that the story speaks to them. I think that, say, 150 years ago, people expected that the story and characters might not be introduced for a while and were comfortable with that. It's not impression that it's the case today.

That said, if the very next paragraph (or some time really soon) had characters I could become engaged with coming into play, I would certainly feel enough confidence in your writing, based on the descriptions, to want to see what kind of story and characters we were dealing with. If there are many readers who are less patient than I am, there's a chance you might lose them before this point, though.

One option would be to start with a teaser opening that was not too jarring compared to the description. The problem is that if the first sentence is too loaded, then settling back into a carefully-delivered description of the setting might seem like a cheap trick. A gently-brought off but provocative first sentence, though, might fit. For instance (and of course, this wouldn't fit with your story and is just an example):

The planet was not what it seemed.

-or-

It all seemed quiet when they arrived.

Well, those are somewhat weak, which might demonstrate that having an opening that's sufficiently intriguing to carry the reader would clash too much with the tone of the two paragraphs you already have.

OSC says "The first paragraph is free," so perhaps from that perspective it's fine to start with this kind of description. From my point of view, the first paragraph is the most crucial, but I understand if between the two points of view you consider OSC's the more authoritative!

Pickier stuff: Since I don't know what a manta-class battlecruiser looks like and don't necessary expect to find out, it draws me out of the story a little bit to hear that. Also, "[cool animal name]-class [spaceship]" is a common enough phrase in science fiction that it feels a little cliched to me. That's very subjective, of course.

"a shuttle was launched" -- You might want to put this in active voice instead of passive. "Eldred Spitzer launched his shuttlecraft ..." or "They launched a shuttle ..."

To try to distill my main concern here, the setting we see here is wonderfully cinematic but is not (presumably) the setting the characters see, so that in prose I think it is largely beside the point.

I hope some of this is helpful. I'd be happy to read more if you have any interest in my feedback.

It is a great temptation to set up a scene or story. And I do understand it. But most times you don't need to do it with author voice.

You raise an important point. I am writing in third person omniscient. Is there really no room for descriptive prose outside of immediate character association in such a POV?

I guess I disagree a little with Shawn (please excuse me if I'm muddling my spelling) on a couple of points. First, it seems to me that this is "showing" very specifically, regardless of there being no characters. It's definitely a scene rather than narrative summary. That said, no characters being involved is an issue for me too, as you probably gathered.

I also disagree that writing shouldn't be visual. Sol Stein, for instance, author of nine novels and an editor of some bestsellers, exhorts the writers he edits to put something visual on every page.

So the issue to me seems one of viewpoint rather than of showing or visual quality.

3rd person omniscient certainly permits of this kind of writing. I'd suggest that the question is whether staying outside an individual character's viewpoint is worth it when you consider the limitations of that process.

By the way, another possibility occurred to me: You could frame that description with a character and a hint of conflict. For instance:

"Tina Rood wasn't supposed to be at the large viewport when they neared the planet; she was supposed to be monitoring ion drive performance down in engineering--but she lived for starscapes like this."

Again, that's not a suggestion for you to literally include, because it would surprise me very greatly if your main character was an ion drive engineer named Tina Rood. :)

Hope some of this is helpful.

quote:

---

You are "telling" the reader what they should be seeing rather than letting the reader live the scenes through a character (showing).

---

About Omniscient: you can describe anything, in any order, in any degree of detail in full Omniscient, but there still must be rules. My rule is this; whatever event is described must have important implications for the story. Thus, this scene has no place in a full Omniscient narrative.

If you wanted to use a "narrative POV"--in other words, set up the narrator (or the narrative tradition) as a sort of "character" in the story, then you can use scenes that are purely evocative like this. But you have to order the narrative on that basis, everything must be "as told by" the narrator you've invented. Tolkien, of course, is the prime example of this, but there are others.

From that point of view (meaning judging it as a evocative narration by an implied "narrator character"), the first passage is technically much better (but it still doesn't grab me). The second passge is just dull by comparison.

I realise now how using a narrative voice applies and this instance is not it - Kolona was trying to tell me that, but the few paragraphs are too weak to stand alone.

Hopefully something of the reason for those paragraphs was evident - the highly symbolic nature, even with the opening colours - a 'new dawn' in spiritual blue, and the blood/war red of the moon actually being visited.

I wanted to shy from Shaun's suggestions, which were given before, simply because I'm a very visual person and see my writing in the visual sense. Trying to narrow it into a character POV is not a natural style for myself, and perhaps my weakest point as an aspiring writer.

Funny - some years ago I made the conscious decision to write novels, rather than screenplays, because I thought I would have to compromise far less with novel writing. Oh ho ho! Still, at least the plot structure is unaffected, which I always feared losing in a screenplay.

Anyway, I'll rewrite from character POV from the opening sentence, and try to include the symbolism in her thoughts. Luckily, not too many scenes will be affected by correcting for the POV error.

Paganquaker - Thanks also for making comment, but I do concur that Survivor and Shaun are quite correct in this instance. Survivor is especially good at pointing out my errors so I can attend to them. I figure the fewer I have, the less excuse I give the agents to reject my work.

Brian

quote:

---

As an omniscient narrator, you float over the landscape wherever you want, moving from place to place in the twinkling of an eye.

---

-- Orson Scott Card, Character and Viewpoint, Writer's Digest Books, 1988

quote:

---

Showing: Making action visible to the reader as if it were happening before his eyes, moment by moment.

...

Telling: Relating what happened offstage.

---

-- Sol Stein, How to Grow a Novel, St. Martin's Griffin, 1999

All this being said, I think there was a shared sense that there wasn't a reason to care about the description yet, and it sounds like there's an effective solution in the works for that.

Luc

OSC's "Characters and viewpoint" only has about two pages on this POV - but if you note the example writing he uses, it is all from a character perspective.

There are instances were a narrative voice can indeed be used to give important information beyond character knowledge - chapter two in Peter F Hamiliton's "Reality Dysfunction" uses it to introduce an alien race in a somewhat questionable plot device.

But in scene with character and narrative voice, the general criticism that it read awkward is a salient and important point. I can have scenes with such a narrative voice - cf Kolona suggesting the Carandon having it's own chapter, which I cannot do as it would distract from otherwise essential points of focus.

BUT as OSC contantly makes a point of in "CaV", character is everything - it is the real hook to catch the reader. I can use Arlissa from the example to give the same information, but deliver it more powerfully so, because we can relate more easily to a "human voice" (ie the character), rather than a "dis-embodied voice" (ie, the narrative only).

Yes, I've read one of Sol Stein's other books for authors, and so far as I can tell, the "show don't tell" is one of his mantra's - in both excerpts I provided I did simply tell, rather than show through character eyes.

At the end of the day, as you appreciate, I need to tighten up.

quote:

---

in both excerpts I provided I did simply tell, rather than show through character eyes.

---

This is true if telling means not showing through a character's eyes. However, using Stein's definitions of showing and telling, you did show not tell, since Stein makes the point that the action is visible to the reader not the characters. The Carandon's movements are happening before the reader's eyes, moment by moment, and Arlyssa comes in on cue.

According to Stein's definition of telling-- and I'm assuming he means the relating is going on offstage, not that the action happened offstage (because the more I thought about that, the more confused I got)-- either the narrator or a character would have to relate the events out of their proper time, ie, not before the reader's eyes or moment by moment.

So it seems to me that narrative can be showing, and the quibble here is between telling as a narrator or telling through a character's eyes.

Empire, I agree that omniscient is often weak; it seemed to me, though, that the definitions of omniscient POV and "Showing versus Telling" were in some question here and wanted to see if we could agree on what the terms signified. I hope the quotes were helpful to that end.

Yes, even though there was diagreement about the definition, the objections to the actual text were the same.

I'm wholly focussed on writing for the agent, ensuring I keep their attention. Maybe I can get away with a narrative voice in the first three short paragraphs - then the character voice cuts in. Maybe I should separate the sections with a blank line or two, as there is a natural break of sorts.

Either way, it's something I have to look at closer so that I can justify any decision I make on the issue. Thank you all for bringing it to my attention though.

I work with many writers who have trouble with this one and have seen every but but but but but but their is.

You can find a book that fits your idea of show don't tell, but what matters is what the reader thinks when they read your words---and the most important reader is the editor or agent.

I do not mean writing should not be visual--of course it should be. You want to paint vivid scenes. But not as telling. And any time you, the author, speak to the reader--and not through character eyes, you are telling. Because the reader is not being shown through the character.

All knowing is a fine POV---but it is also best when shown through character eyes---it can be weak and lengthy though.

I read a description by in all knowing and I think hmmm, ok, why do I care? If I read it through a character's eyes I care because the scene is impacting the character.

I, the author can say, Eddy, who stood behind Seth leaning on a fence, yelled at Frank. Show or tell? I know people would argue and say showing. You showed where eddy was and what he did. Nope—this is telling. I told you where Eddy was and what he did.

Eddy pushed himself away from the fence and shoved Seth out of the way so he could stand inches from Frank. “Frank, I hate you,” he yelled. Now I’ve shown you. You know Eddy was leaning on the fence or at least by it, you know he was behind Seth because he had to shove Seth out of the way. And we experience him yelling at Frank we are not just told about it.

One example I use in my work is this one: You are watching the big game with friends (ok I don’t care if you watch sports, that’s not the point) man you had to much soda and have to pee it can’t wait. You get up and run to the can. While in there you hear a big crash and your friends yelling. You hurry up and rush back out to find a speedboat in the living room and a bunch of cops climbing in your house through the hole in your front wall.

Your friends crowd around your and say—wow you should have seen it, that boat came right off the highway, flew off some guys trailer, and crash right through the window. They go on to explain what they saw.

You sit down feeling what? My first reaction is boy I wish I’d seen that. Exactly. Someone can tell you about it but seeing it as it happens with your own eyes (through the character’s eyes) is much better. (there will be those that will twist this to fit their idea)

I also ask people to think about this ----remember the trek movie with the saucer section of the Enterprise crashing into the planet. Wow. Trek fan or not that was impressive. When someone told me about it I had to go “see” it. I had to be shown it. Why? I’d already heard about it, been told about it---- Well, it goes to see and not be told, show don’t tell.

Show things through the eyes of a character even in all knowing and you story is twice as effective because your reader cares what is playing out.

Shawn shoves soapbox aside. OH and it is Shawn, S-H-A-W-N, yes the male spelling.

So far as I can tell the issue only affects a few short sections in a few scenes, so rewriting shouldn't be too muhc of an issue.

Thanks again.

quote:

---

I, the author can say, Eddy, who stood behind Seth leaning on a fence, yelled at Frank.

---

No, the sentence is awkward no matter how it's done. We really don't know who's leaning on the fence, Eddy or Seth. So let's first clear that up. It's either:
Eddy stood leaning on the fence behind Seth, and yelled at Frank.
Or:
Eddy stood behind Seth, who was leaning on the fence, and yelled at Frank.

However,

quote:

---

Eddy pushed himself away from the fence and shoved Seth out of the way so he could stand inches from Frank. “Frank, I hate you,” he yelled.

---

So it's Eddy who's leaning. But we need to make the two versions equal in order to compare apples and apples. In the first version we don't know anything about shoving, and that seems pretty important. Without it, Eddy is yelling while he leans, which sounds far too laid back to compare to the second version. Then we must introduce the hate factor because, after all, Eddy could have been yelling "Farewell," or "I love you, Dad," or "Watch where you're stepping!" So, if:

Eddy stood leaning on the fence behind Seth, and yelled at Frank.

to make it equal:
Eddy pushed himself from the fence and shoved Seth out of his way. Standing inches from Frank, he yelled his hatred at him.

Now comare to:

quote:

---

Eddy pushed himself away from the fence and shoved Seth out of the way so he could stand inches from Frank. “Frank, I hate you,” he yelled.

---

Showing and telling become less clear, other than the fact that the second has a direct quote. Sometimes I think there's a mistaken notion that narrative is wholly dull, which isn't the case. Likewise, true showing can be dull, a la the morning ritual.

<Oooh. I accidently sent in the middle of this. >
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited January 10, 2003).]

[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited January 10, 2003).]

Now I see PQ and Kolona as being right - Third Person Omniscient does allow such a view as I tried using. That was a consideration for choosing that POV originally. The "show don't tell" argument applied here seems primarily relevant to Third Person Limited or First Person only here.

Even Shaun's above example of the saucer crash in NextGen - by the arguments presented, it would be "illegal" to write that event, other than as seen from the internal viewpoint of a character on the bridge, or else externally by some wandering shepherd who happened to witness it. Which, of course, is an issue of Third Person Limited.

So for the moment I'll keep as is.The first three paragraphs are important for setting a scene, which from paragraph four is engaged through two different character views. Third Person Omniscient!

Not reading some SF novels in Third Person Omniscient, to try and get an idea of how to evolve the weaker parts of my writing into something much stronger.

Brian

PS - ignore anything else I've said aside from this post!

Just some things to think about - they are super basic and I am sure you know all about them, but here goes anyhow.

Active verb usage - not passive.
Engage all senses fully.

We're living in a world of media blips. Short, sharp and flashy. The quick hook. It might be important to remember that. At least during the initial cast.