Tuesday, June 30, 2009
An Unfortunate Recluse
I went to the college gardens this evening and was in love. I was surrounded by such lovely greenery, lovely flowers, and even found the most comfortable tree in which to roost while I wrote in my journal it was heaven--or would have been if it weren't for the various proposing couples and random single women in wedding dresses getting pictures taken, along with girls whose age I couldn't guess (between ten and twenty-five. Somewhere in there), and individuals with cellphones (what for I can't guess unless it's the only place they can get bars). And I was remembering the time my family went camping in a literally enchanted forest, complete with stream and dark, tall trees, and I was wishing oh so much that the gardens were bigger. I guess heaven on earth can only be an imitation of the real thing. It was like comparing Kraft Singles to Gouda. Just a disappointment. In the end, the experience was worth it, and I guess it wasn't in vain, and Summer would make the place popular for many residents, but still... I felt imposed upon, though for the majority I was doing that to others. At least it kept everyone shuffling around. Exercise, Right?
Sunday, June 28, 2009
There and Back Again
Well, I've just finished the entire LOTR series. *Sigh* they're so brilliant. The ideas in them are so fascinating, with so many mixed-in morals, equipped with excellent character development, and clever, unexpected humor in all the right places makes these four books so enchanting. I hate it when some one thinks of J.R.R. Tolkien as cliche. Allow me to stand on my soap box in order to add a few inches to my 5'4" while I rant at you poor readers.
LORD OF THE RINGS IN NOT CLICHE!!! There I said it. Tolkien was the first to come up with ANY thing like this, see? The first to create a world all its own, with complete races, lineages, histories, countries, and a full out War. All the other high-fantasy, epic, defeat-the-dark-lord are all copies. Christopher Paolini and all his wannabe followers, and yes, even the great Lloyd Alexander is merely copying Tolkien's Originality. Phew. I'm done.
Almost. OK, I'll say one more thing: Since Caitlyn already claimed Pippin, Sam and Aragorn are taken, Legolas and Gimli are busy traveling all over Middle Earth together, and Gandalf and Frodo are basically untouchable, I call Merry Brandybuck. Alright. I'm done now.
LORD OF THE RINGS IN NOT CLICHE!!! There I said it. Tolkien was the first to come up with ANY thing like this, see? The first to create a world all its own, with complete races, lineages, histories, countries, and a full out War. All the other high-fantasy, epic, defeat-the-dark-lord are all copies. Christopher Paolini and all his wannabe followers, and yes, even the great Lloyd Alexander is merely copying Tolkien's Originality. Phew. I'm done.
Almost. OK, I'll say one more thing: Since Caitlyn already claimed Pippin, Sam and Aragorn are taken, Legolas and Gimli are busy traveling all over Middle Earth together, and Gandalf and Frodo are basically untouchable, I call Merry Brandybuck. Alright. I'm done now.
Monday, June 22, 2009
A Rose By Any Other Name...
Wouldn't smell as sweet.
My dear sister and I were discussing Shakespeare's Observance, and she didn't agree. She thought that a rose smells wonderful in part because roses are supposed to smell wonderful. She made the impression that their reputations precede them, so whether or not Roses really smell good at all is unimportant. Some one who had never smelt a rose before would expect it to be sweet-smelling because everyone knows roses smell absolutely delicious, so even before their first inhaling, a person would already be expecting a rose to smell sweet.
I'm using this as a reference to the names of Characters in books. I got on the idea of the effect of a character's name on how the reader perceives them after looking up babynames.com in their writers' section. I am a hobbyist writer myself and use Baby Names as a common source for christening characters. They give tips on what you should base names on and having them correct as far as gender, ethnicity, and time period goes, as well as being memorable. Everyone remembers Frodo & Sam. The names just roll off your tongue and stick in your mind like bubble gum in braces.
No one wants to read a name like John or Jane. Eck. Ew. Grody. No. Boring. But names like Katniss, Hermione, Vesper Holly--those are the kind of names you find no where else and remember.
On the flip side, I like to play with normal names given to normal characters: names that are so normal, they're almost abnormal. Or better yet, take a normal name and play with the vowels and consonants till it's completely original.
I once took a regular name e.g. Richard and played with similar consonant sounds until I got something simple, but new, e.g. Wickard.
Names label characters with connotations and stereotypes, just like children on a playground: Chuck sounds simple-minded or overweight; Courtney and Brittany sound like ditsy blond cheerleaders; Jack is edgy or rebellious; Josh is a pretty-boy, while Joshua is either old-fashioned or rich and posh. Visual imagery begins the second a reader hears a character's name.
In short, don't name your kid Eugene.
My dear sister and I were discussing Shakespeare's Observance, and she didn't agree. She thought that a rose smells wonderful in part because roses are supposed to smell wonderful. She made the impression that their reputations precede them, so whether or not Roses really smell good at all is unimportant. Some one who had never smelt a rose before would expect it to be sweet-smelling because everyone knows roses smell absolutely delicious, so even before their first inhaling, a person would already be expecting a rose to smell sweet.
I'm using this as a reference to the names of Characters in books. I got on the idea of the effect of a character's name on how the reader perceives them after looking up babynames.com in their writers' section. I am a hobbyist writer myself and use Baby Names as a common source for christening characters. They give tips on what you should base names on and having them correct as far as gender, ethnicity, and time period goes, as well as being memorable. Everyone remembers Frodo & Sam. The names just roll off your tongue and stick in your mind like bubble gum in braces.
No one wants to read a name like John or Jane. Eck. Ew. Grody. No. Boring. But names like Katniss, Hermione, Vesper Holly--those are the kind of names you find no where else and remember.
On the flip side, I like to play with normal names given to normal characters: names that are so normal, they're almost abnormal. Or better yet, take a normal name and play with the vowels and consonants till it's completely original.
I once took a regular name e.g. Richard and played with similar consonant sounds until I got something simple, but new, e.g. Wickard.
Names label characters with connotations and stereotypes, just like children on a playground: Chuck sounds simple-minded or overweight; Courtney and Brittany sound like ditsy blond cheerleaders; Jack is edgy or rebellious; Josh is a pretty-boy, while Joshua is either old-fashioned or rich and posh. Visual imagery begins the second a reader hears a character's name.
In short, don't name your kid Eugene.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
First Impressions
I've been visiting the Good Ol' Library a lot this summer and have found something: I DO judge a book by its cover! Call me prejudice, but if a book has some idiotic picture of a teenage girl/boy/Dragon on the cover with the look of outrageous astonishment (See cover of 'the Gammage Cup', 'Nancy drew,' etc.), I'm not going to check it out. Period.
Then there are the cliche titles like, "Norgblats, the Dragon," "The life and times of Susan Decrue," "Love, Jim"... basically if it has "dragon-(Insert intense-sounding noun here)" or Some woman's name and the picture of white birds on the front, or anything with Scarlet, Black, Gold, or Midnight in them.
On the other hand, there are the perfectly wonderful titles, "Does My Head Look Big in This?" "Stargirl," "Of Mice and Men," "Evil Genius," "To Kill a Mocking Bird," and others that completely grab you.
I also judge heavily on the first sentence (which, coincidentally, is the hardest part about writing for me). The first sentence will tell you everything about an author's writing style, and whether or not it'll be any good. The second I read, "There once was--" I slam the book shut and throw at the opposite wall. We all know "Once upon a time," and "Long ago, in a land far, far away," are all overused, but so are things people use when they think they're being original, like when they start with an Onomatopoeia. Boom! Wham! Pow! If you think I'm on the edge of my seat, I'm not. I'm slouched even farther down and groaning. Of course, Onomatopoeia's aren't all bad, so long as they're different enough to make me actually concentrate when reading them. Not to the extent that they take attention away from the story, but that they make the reader actually pay attention, making them wonder, "What on earth makes THAT noise?!" Like Kap-TWING! SHLOOP! Thwallump!
C.S. Lewis is the perfect example of originality. 'The Horse and His Boy.' It's different, and you start asking questions before you even open it, "Wait, isn't the boy supposed to own the horse?" "What's so special about this Horse, anyway?" "Why does he HAVE a boy?"
The title was equipped with a beautiful, water-colored cover, with a Horse. And a Boy. So simple. So intriguing.
And then, In a different book the same series of Narnia, "The Dawn Treader," where the first thing you read is one of the best sentences a book has ever been started with: "There was a boy named Eustace Clarence Scrubb, and he almost deserved it." Different, Funny, something we can all relate to in someway: Brilliant!! It started with a usual, "There was..." But then a name that was familiar, yet so different, followed by a phrase we can all understand without further explanation.
The point of a book isn't to just Plop the entire plot and characters in front of the reader and say, 'here it is.' The evidence of mystery is why people read! titles/covers/first words should create questions instantly in a person's head, then slowly answering them while still making new questions as the story progresses. Stories shouldn't be handed to us on silver platters, we should have to work for them, fighting for our own understanding and interpretation of characters and morals in the book.
Then there are the cliche titles like, "Norgblats, the Dragon," "The life and times of Susan Decrue," "Love, Jim"... basically if it has "dragon-(Insert intense-sounding noun here)" or Some woman's name and the picture of white birds on the front, or anything with Scarlet, Black, Gold, or Midnight in them.
On the other hand, there are the perfectly wonderful titles, "Does My Head Look Big in This?" "Stargirl," "Of Mice and Men," "Evil Genius," "To Kill a Mocking Bird," and others that completely grab you.
I also judge heavily on the first sentence (which, coincidentally, is the hardest part about writing for me). The first sentence will tell you everything about an author's writing style, and whether or not it'll be any good. The second I read, "There once was--" I slam the book shut and throw at the opposite wall. We all know "Once upon a time," and "Long ago, in a land far, far away," are all overused, but so are things people use when they think they're being original, like when they start with an Onomatopoeia. Boom! Wham! Pow! If you think I'm on the edge of my seat, I'm not. I'm slouched even farther down and groaning. Of course, Onomatopoeia's aren't all bad, so long as they're different enough to make me actually concentrate when reading them. Not to the extent that they take attention away from the story, but that they make the reader actually pay attention, making them wonder, "What on earth makes THAT noise?!" Like Kap-TWING! SHLOOP! Thwallump!
C.S. Lewis is the perfect example of originality. 'The Horse and His Boy.' It's different, and you start asking questions before you even open it, "Wait, isn't the boy supposed to own the horse?" "What's so special about this Horse, anyway?" "Why does he HAVE a boy?"
The title was equipped with a beautiful, water-colored cover, with a Horse. And a Boy. So simple. So intriguing.
And then, In a different book the same series of Narnia, "The Dawn Treader," where the first thing you read is one of the best sentences a book has ever been started with: "There was a boy named Eustace Clarence Scrubb, and he almost deserved it." Different, Funny, something we can all relate to in someway: Brilliant!! It started with a usual, "There was..." But then a name that was familiar, yet so different, followed by a phrase we can all understand without further explanation.
The point of a book isn't to just Plop the entire plot and characters in front of the reader and say, 'here it is.' The evidence of mystery is why people read! titles/covers/first words should create questions instantly in a person's head, then slowly answering them while still making new questions as the story progresses. Stories shouldn't be handed to us on silver platters, we should have to work for them, fighting for our own understanding and interpretation of characters and morals in the book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)