Big uh-oh

Yeah, so….uh, my computer just died. Typing this up on my company laptop. Worst part is, it’s the motherboard and my main drive has RAID on it. I have to replace the motherboard and so I’ll probably have to format the RAID. And all of my stories are on the RAID. Now, I won’t lose anything I’ve already produced, as I back up everything religiously, but I will most likely lose my latest story. Most of it, anyways. So that’ll set me back. Quite a bit, actually. That’s actually pretty depressing and upsetting.

Awesome.

Posted on January 28th, 2008 at 8:59 pm by Phil | Filed under Main | No Comments »

Neal Stephenson’s “Snow Crash”

The sci-fi short story is done, essentially. This is the longest piece of fiction I have ever written, currently clocking in at 10,758 words. I like how it is turning out, but I still don’t feel that I am ready to finalize it yet. My current plan is to spend the rest of this week and at least part of this upcoming weekend editing it. I’ll probably post the final version sometime next week.

In the meantime, I would like to talk about ‘Snow Crash’ by Neil Stephenson. Man, did I ever enjoy this book. Honestly, I am not sure how I was able to go for so long without reading it, what with being a card-carrying geek and all. This book seems like it was made for me.

There are two points, as an aspiring writer, that I found very interesting while reading that I would like to discuss. The first was the change in tone when the narrative switched between the main characters, and the second is the weaving of what appeared to be actual, real-world research seamlessly in with the overall story. I would normally put a plot and character synopsis here but Wikipedia has already done my job for me. Go ahead and take a look and come back when you are finished: Snow Crash

Now that you have a little bit of background, let’s get on with the tone between the two main characters. The story is told in a third person limited omniscient point of view. Hiro and Y.T. are different from each other in lots of different ways, not the least of which is their age. They obviously have vastly different speaking styles due to their age difference and upbringing, but the interesting bit to me as a developing writer is the subtle narration difference between them. When the story is focusing on Y.T. the narration lapses into a much more informal style, and she seems to notice things that only a teenage girl would notice or find important. This allowed for me to easily follow the jumps between characters, which was vital. It also has the effect of making the characters feel more substantial and real and makes the whole story much more organic and fluid.

I’ve attempted to do things like this, but really I have only touched on different speech patterns between characters. I’ve come to realize that I generally only write in the same third person limited omniscient point of view that Stephenson used in ‘Snow Crash’, but when I do this I only stay with one character. I do not jump between multiple characters. This is something I would like to concentrate on in the future, and when I do so I should remember this writing technique and attempt to utilize it.

The second point is the melding of seemingly real-world research into the overall story. Stephenson manages to seamlessly tie together ancient Sumerian history, the story of the tower of babel, and actual historical events in the middle east into the main plot. Wow, right? The mental energy that it must take to keep all of these plot points straight and to make sure that it all actually makes sense boggles my mind.

This is definitely something that takes a lot of practice and dedication to pull off. When I first started writing I felt that as long as I made up and followed my own rules and histories within each story I would be alright, and this is still true. As a reader, I do not care if an author makes up new scientific theories or if history is fabricated. That is part of the creative process. However, it is vital that whatever rules you make are followed strictly. It confuses and annoys the reader if an author introduces a rule and then breaks the rule at a later time, without any explanations. Now, a piece of fiction can most definitely make and then break rules for shock value, but it must be adequately explained. This seems like an obvious point, but I can’t tell you how many times I have read short fiction that made this mistake. I try very hard to follow my own rules in my writing.

So when does including real-world research or rules make sense? Currently I am thinking that you should include these things when you want to tell a story that is either completely based in our world or if you want to include something in the near future. Including these pieces of factual information helps the reader become more involved in the story. It has a grounding effect, making the characters and events seem more real and life-like, which means that learning this skill is extremely beneficial to an author. It definitely worked for ‘Snow Crash’, which was set sometime in the relatively near future.

Right now, I’m thinking that I will make a little list of writing techniques that I would like to address in future projects. That way whenever I begin feeling bored or unchallenged while writing (wow, what a feeling that will be if it ever comes!) I can refer back and attempt to incorporate a few of the items found there. I have a few more posts like this bouncing around inside of my head, so maybe that list will end up being rather large.

Posted on January 24th, 2008 at 7:37 pm by Phil | Filed under Discussion | No Comments »

Sci fi short story coming

I’m working on a science fiction short story, it’s about 50% done at this point. My plan is to have it done by the end of this upcoming weekend. We’ll see how it goes!

Posted on January 18th, 2008 at 12:46 am by Phil | Filed under Main | No Comments »