posted
Hey all. I've noticed over the last few days, that my characters dont seem to be able to just do 1 single action at a time. They always have to do 2 things simultaneously. For example:
He rubbed his ears "while he" looked at the screen.
He stroked his beard "as he" thought of all the possibilities.
...and so on.
Sometimes, it just seems that sentences are too small if somebody just does 1 action, and that's all.
Anyone else find this? I'm conciously aware of it now & try and avoid it, since I feel it is some kind of a fault in my writing. Maybe it's normal though, and I should just let it flow.
posted
You need to make a distinction between what I call plot action and character action.
Plot action are those actions that advance the plot. Character actions are those actions that make the character vivid. Be careful not to combine these in akward ways.
For my money, this is what I'd do:
"He stroked his beard. The screen told him ...."
or:
"He stroked his beard. There were two paths he could take."
Why? Because the action you used is a universal sign that someone is thinking. So you don't need to belabor the point.
[This message has been edited by Karloff (edited January 19, 2006).]
posted
If your sentances all end up being the same length and/or structure, your writing will seem boring and monotonous.
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll second Survivor on that. There's nothing more annoying that a samey rhythm that sends you to sleep.
Posts: 1075 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
You've made an astue observation about humankind. It's natural for actions to accompany words or maybe no words at all or for people to do more than one thing, especially in the thought process.
Ninety percent of all communication is non-verbal. In an interrogation setting that is waht tells us if the person is lying or just not remembering the events in the sequence they occured.
My characters all, pretty much do two or more things when doing something.
"Lost in the events of the last week, Bartholomew methodically paced the room. He ran his hands through his hair, a habit he has when submerged in deep thought..."
"Drawing his spatha, Maximillius looks left , right and left again, ..."
"In one fluid movement, Brassius unsheathes his sword, calls for the charge and spurs his horse into action ..."
"With a handful of hair, Simon jerks the Roman soldier against the iron bars of the cell and saddles the sword against his throat whispering into his ear, "'You so much as breathe and this Hebrew dog will lay your throat open.'"
In all my observations, I have rarely seen a person do one thing. Pause. Do another. Pause. Do another. Pause ...... If a person does act in that manner, then:
1)they have either a mental or physical medical condition.
2)They are a child
3)They are unsure about the task they are performing and are mentally going through the steps in their mind before putting them into action.
In an interrogation setting, we also focus on what the person did not say or do that they should have said or done. Its the same thing as being at a crime scene and notcing that something is not right, something is missing that should have been there. For example, the lack of shell casings at the crime scene where the subject was shot with a shotgun or a 9mm handgun, indicates that the killer knew what he was doing. A 9mm and a shotgun both eject shell casings. Though there are 9mm revolvers and doublebarrel shotguns, weapons that do not eject rounds, it is highly unlikely that those weapons would be used. Therefore, it can be assumed that the killer policed up his spent casings, which means that he knew what he was doing. In police terms... no clues is a mighty big clue.
In writing this can be conveyed by stating the inaction with the action. "Without looking up, the guards scooped out a ladel full of gruel for each cup."
The guards did not look up. There was no other action they were performing aside from filling cups with gruel. Why is it so important to know that the guards did not perform any other action? Why not just say, "The guards scooped out a ladel full of gruel for each cup." Because the inaction leads to another action. The guards not looking up shows they are only focused on the dishing out of gruel and not what else is going on around them thus leading one to think that something is about to horribly wrong for these two guards.
In my opinion, by having your characters perform more than one task, they appear much more human.
Peace, Scott
[This message has been edited by Zodiaxe (edited January 19, 2006).]
posted
I tend to do the same thing with action and dialogue.
"Where could he be?" she said as she paced around the room.
"Work is for suckers," he said as he finished putting his feet up on the chair and stretched.
I can't decide yet if this habit of mine is a fault, though I do make sure to vary the sentence structure and not make too many dialogue tags be coupled with action like this.
But again, I think this is more reflective of how people actually talk also. It's not often that you will just stand rigid in front of someone and speak. Most people talk at least a little with their hands, or have conversations while doing other things whether it be pacing across a room, typing at a computer, or even simply walking together from point A to point B. This tends to be my way of helping to get rid of the "floating heads" syndrome when all you have is dialogue tag after dialogue tag.
Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with mentioning actions in pairs all that often, just as long as it's not SO often that it leaps out at the reader and pulls him out of the story.
posted
What I've found is that movies have harmed the fiction writer who is trying to describe action. Take this example from Zodiaxe's post:
quote:In one fluid movement, Brassius unsheathes his sword, calls for the charge and spurs his horse into action ...
There's nothing wrong with it gramatically, but it's an action you'd see in a movie, not read in a novel. As I a reader what should I focus on? What do you want me to see? Better to expand this one fluid action into a paragraph and make it vivid.
As Hemingway taught us, a reader will fill in the blanks. Though at times I wish Papa didn't leave us with so many blanks to fill in. You don't need to load us down with information. Though it is true that people often do two things at the same time that does not mean you should include both actions in your stories.
Of course, my favorite writers, in terms of style, are Hemingway, John D. MacDonald, Louis L'Amour -- writers who write very direct sentences.
posted
That's because I'm a detail oriented guy. I like detail, detail detail.
I like Robert Parker's Spenser novels. However, I think they, like Hemingway, read like a newspaper article. He said...She said... He did...she did... yeah that's nice but I don't feel anything. To me it has no feeling, no emotion. However, I can live with that if the dialog is spiced up, like Daschiell Hammet or Mickey Spillaine. Favorite Mickey Spillane verse...
"With his back against the wharehouse wall, his .38 empty, blood dripping from the gunshot wound in his left arm, and Simozoa's henchmen moving in for the kill, Hammer reached into his pocket and pulled out his cigarettes and matches. He flipped one into his mouth and lit it. Was he worried, was he scared? Yeah, he was. Even Mike Hammer gets scared. He was scared one of Simoza's henchmen would get away."
On the other hand, James Michener, Patricia Cornwell, Joe R. Lansdale, Clive Barker and Michael Crichton can write a scene so vividly that it makes me feel like I'm actually involved in what is taking place.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
