posted
I recently read a series of articles that briefly explained possible directions technology could go in that could, after surgeries, gene therapy, and pills, result in a better, stronger, and faster you. Well, you, me...the average Joe. Or Jane.
Anyway, as I read this, I had a recurring idea buzzing in my brain, and I was wondering if it would be copyright infringment to use the information (offered publicly, if that matters) read in these articles. If not, do I have to contact the writer to attain permission?
Also, could I contact the scientists quoted in the articles, or would that be overkill?
Blissfully unaware of any and all laws, (though it may not be as blissful to the casual passerby),
Chris.
PS--I recently reread Stephen King's On Writing, and his views on plot ("the dullard's first choice", if memory serves) disturbed me, I'll admit. I like knowing where the story goes, and I like to be surprised. He says he makes up the story as he goes along, and if he DOES have to plot, it ends up hurting the novel, making it sound false and forced. Needless to say, it makes it harder for me to write; after all, who am I to disagree with such a great writer?
Any opinions?
[This message has been edited by cvgurau (edited March 10, 2003).]
posted
That's how I write--I have no idea where the story is going until it gets there. I start with a scene and go for it, letting the characters take me where they will.
posted
I've tried both, and for me, having a pretty detailed plan helps keep me from going on unfruitful tangents, and also from writer's block. It really depends on the kind of story you're trying to tell. I think that no matter how much you plan, leave room within each chapter to wiggle with the characters a little. Never make a character do something he/she wouldn't do just to make the plot work. But like srhowen said, whatever works for you. When I read On Writing, I decided I wasn't the sort of person who can just write blindly. I guess it works for him (haven't read any King besides that book), but it doesn't work for me. Eh, now I've started rambling...
Posts: 814 | Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted
I, too, read On Writing. While it has many useful concepts, I don't think King's aversion to plot is a secret to success. Consider that many of the great classics had to be plotted. Dickens and Austen, for example, wrote and published their novels in serial form. They would have to know where the book was headed in chapter 27 while they wrote chapter 1. Otherwise they might not introduce the characters and plot elements they would need.
I recently read Pride and Prejudice. The intricately woven plan Jane Austen must have made for this novel is amazing. I recommend studying it for that purpose. I also recommend studying it if you want help developing very smart, very witty dialogue.
[This message has been edited by Doc Brown (edited March 10, 2003).]
[This message has been edited by Doc Brown (edited March 10, 2003).]
posted
The odd thing about the "just do it" way of writing is that those elements in chapter one needed in chapter twenty seven---are there. I don't know how to explain it to someone who does not write that way---
But it is as if the story is in your head, complete and just waiting for you to put it to paper. It is odd and most likely why most people I know, who just write without a pre-plot, write very quickly.
I don't plan, not at all. I find it amazing that my stories come out as well as they do. LOL
And once and a while I do have to go back and add a line or to here and there to make things come out right--read so some elements don’t come off as a plot convenience.
I don't advocate this sort of writing, though--it borders on the "Shawn, you're nuts." If your story isn't there waiting to get out--plot plot plot and plot.
posted
I think that you should start with your characters, and let them do what they do. Of course, when you create a bunch of characters you are drawing them to some extent based on what you feel will create interesting actions and situations, and eventually that series of actions and situations become a plot.
As for the other thing, don't use a single source for the ideas in your story. If the information is science, then you cannot "infringe" on the copyright (legally, if a mapmaker doesn't include any fictional elements in their maps, then they cannot apply copyright law). But you still shouldn't rely on a single source. Use other sources too, and mix your own thoughts in there.
posted
Find a copy of The Hugo Winners. Read Larry Niven's short story Neutron Star as well as Asimov's introduction to it. It's a unique case because Niven was inspired to write the fictional Neutron Star based on information Asimov presented in his non-fiction article "Time and Tide." Asimov recognized this, and when he was putting the anthology together he asked Niven about it. Niven freely admitted that Asimov's article was the source of this highly acclaimed story.
Posts: 976 | Registered: May 2001
|
quote: They would have to know where the book was headed in chapter 27 while they wrote chapter 1. Otherwise they might not introduce the characters and plot elements they would need.
What about The Green Mile? King wrote that in serial form.
posted
As I said--when you write that way the elements are there. I have a serial running in an online magazine---no plotting before hand and it is working as well as my all at once stories.
posted
Why can't you argue with a great writer? If it doesn't work for you, it just doesn't work. Why force yourself to write in a way unnatural to you? From what I've read here and elsewhere, most writers have an overall preference whether to plot or not to plot, and neither method is wrong if it works.
Subordinate to that, writing seems to depend on what element the writer starts with--a neat scientific idea like yours, Chris, or a wholly imaginary one; a character; a basic plot--maybe the writer knows only where's he's generally headed; one scene that will be fit in somewhere even if he has no idea about anything else (which is what I did.)
At the risk of sounding trite, each writer is unique.
I'm not a plotter. The thought of laying everything out in advance to me is a discouraging thought.
quote:The odd thing about the "just do it" way of writing is that those elements in chapter one needed in chapter twenty seven---are there. I don't know how to explain it to someone who does not write that way---
I fully understand what Shawn is saying. I've had it happen. The subconscious mind is a wonderful thing.
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited March 12, 2003).]
posted
Of course it can work. But ". . . those elements in chapter one needed in chapter twenty seven---are there. I don't know how to explain it to someone who does not write that way---" sounds like a guarantee that it always works for every writer. I seriously doubt that this is what Shawn meant.
I'm not claiming that any writer must plan everything. I'm only claiming that both planning and not planning have lead to excellent books in the past. I absolutely would never be so egotistical as to assure Chris that I know which is best for his writing. But I would always recommend some basic planning, especially major traits of main characters.
[This message has been edited by Doc Brown (edited March 13, 2003).]
posted
ugh--it is after 10pm and some new people are moving in across the street --their kid maybe 12 years old is out there bouncing a basketball. Save me!
Anyway--Doc,
In no way do I think this works for every writer or for very many of them. Sorry if it sounded that way.
You write whatever way works for you--period.
If I plot nad plan the story goes away--like I wish that kid would.
posted
Okay, but what if you do plan, and when you write the story, it doesn't seem to want to fit the plan? Do you sqeeze a square peg into a round hole, or do you just go where the story's leading you?
Posts: 552 | Registered: Jan 2002
|
Remember, OSC recommends building a story by combining two or more unrelated ideas. Stephen King considers a story a "found" object that you discover while you write it. So either way you can look at an idea that diverges from your original plan as a good thing.
posted
What about somewhere in between? I usually know where I want a story to go, and some of the things along the way, but I can't plot scene-by-scene, or the whole thing dies a painful death. I aim the story at the next part I know, and it gets there, ususally, even if it takes a couple of detours.
I frequently explore story arcs that have nothing to do with the rest of the story, some times they make it into the finished product, and sometimes they don't.
posted
yeah, that's usually how I work as well. It tends to work as often as not, so I write a vague outline, and try to stick to it, but don't always, which is just as well. Not everything goes according to plan, after all.
Chris
PS--kwsni, what exactly does that stand for? Is it a name, or an acronym, or something?
posted
It is indeed an acronym. I was a Monty Python freak when I signed up, and my favorite python scene is the knights who say ni scene in holy grail. My name in the regular forums is knightswhosayni!.
That's also why I sign my posts:
Ni!
[This message has been edited by kwsni (edited March 15, 2003).]
posted
I feel a little bit like a person showing up to a party at 9:00 that began at 5:00. I want to make a comment on King’s ON WRITING.
Personally, I think King has a point. But go back and read his set-up for the story competition. If he works that way, then he doesn’t just sit down and start writing. He knows something of the back-story. And if I remember correctly, he has an ending in mind. Perhaps the ending is different form what he thought it would be, but he has an end in mind. And that is essential!
It seems to me what King does not do is write down and analyze his ideas. He doesn’t plot in the sense of delineating what happens in each chapter. He has a question, some characters, a back-story, and an ending (and if he has an ending, he has and idea about how to get there). Once those are there, he starts. It’s a great way to write if you can.
Of course, he doesn’t say it like that. He’d much rather think he works from his gut than from his mind. That’s fine, but I think a careful reading of the third section of ON WRITING will support my exegesis.
There, I’m finished.
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited March 26, 2003).]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
