By Monet M. Jones
I think POV is a lot of BS. Let me clarify that statement. I think strict adherence to a particular Point of View when writing a novel is as useless as Broom Straw.
Understand me; a field of broom straw undulating in a light breeze is a beautiful thing. I remember running with my brother through such fields as a youngster. My brother and I thought the waist high grass was wonderful. However, after stumbling over hidden roots in one and almost stepping on a snake in another; we concluded broom straw looks good but hides important details.
I agree that when defining a scene it is important to use a strict point of view. However confining one’s depiction of a story to the insight of a single character simply because some nebulous “they” has decided one should is BS; those letters may not mean Broom Straw in this instance.
I recently reread Of Mice and Men and thought it would have been a shame if Steinbeck had read his story to a writer’s workshop. He told the story his way. So much dimension would have been lost if he had slavishly observed a restrictive narrative mode.
I have decided that henceforth I will use third person omniscient as my usual writing point of view. This should resolve any conflicts about a narrative mode and of course make my writing more like that of Steinbeck.
Showing posts with label Monet M. Jones. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Monet M. Jones. Show all posts
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Digital Downloads
By Monet M. Jones
One of my favorite artists performed one of the saddest songs I’ve ever heard. Many years ago, Carly Simon sang: “That’s the way I’ve always heard it should be.”
The tune seems to depict one whose strength and will is continually held down by a covering of hopelessness, until a volley of drums lifts the person and her melancholy to great heights; briefly. But the tune is only part of the message; the lyrics tell of her parents’ loveless marriage and her doubts that her marriage will be any better. In the end, she decides that she will marry because that’s the way she’s always heard it should be.
That pretty much describes how I feel about traditional publishing. I don’t want to send off query letters. I don’t want people interested in only the moneymaking aspects deciding whether to publish my book. I don’t want to be obligated to attend book signings or promotional tours.
I don’t want my story bound in hard cover, sold for three times what it is worth to people who will likely never read it, and buy it only because of heavy advertising. That’s not why I write. I write to share my ideas and dreams with a reader. I write to enrich another’s concept of life.
In our current marketing environment, I feel the only reasons for traditional publishing are vanity and “that’s the way it’s always been done.” I believe we are moving to a time when it will be unnecessary to put 'books' in hard copy. The exchange of ideas by words and graphics will occur in digital downloads to e-readers and other computing devices.
Whether or not one applauds this change is immaterial. As we have seen with music sales, the wave has begun; current authors can only ride it or be drenched.
One of my favorite artists performed one of the saddest songs I’ve ever heard. Many years ago, Carly Simon sang: “That’s the way I’ve always heard it should be.”
The tune seems to depict one whose strength and will is continually held down by a covering of hopelessness, until a volley of drums lifts the person and her melancholy to great heights; briefly. But the tune is only part of the message; the lyrics tell of her parents’ loveless marriage and her doubts that her marriage will be any better. In the end, she decides that she will marry because that’s the way she’s always heard it should be.
That pretty much describes how I feel about traditional publishing. I don’t want to send off query letters. I don’t want people interested in only the moneymaking aspects deciding whether to publish my book. I don’t want to be obligated to attend book signings or promotional tours.
I don’t want my story bound in hard cover, sold for three times what it is worth to people who will likely never read it, and buy it only because of heavy advertising. That’s not why I write. I write to share my ideas and dreams with a reader. I write to enrich another’s concept of life.
In our current marketing environment, I feel the only reasons for traditional publishing are vanity and “that’s the way it’s always been done.” I believe we are moving to a time when it will be unnecessary to put 'books' in hard copy. The exchange of ideas by words and graphics will occur in digital downloads to e-readers and other computing devices.
Whether or not one applauds this change is immaterial. As we have seen with music sales, the wave has begun; current authors can only ride it or be drenched.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
A Perfect Workshop
By Monet Jones
Many thousands of years ago, or so it seems, I graduated from Hannah High School. My graduating class consisted of twenty-one persons, fourteen girls, and seven boys. The curriculum in that small rural school was naturally limited. Two non-academic courses were considered mandatory; all girls were to take FHA, Future Homemakers of America, and all boys, FFA, Future Farmers of America.
The FFA proved to be an extraordinarily boring class except for three areas, each of which included a contest: electricity, public speaking, and cattle judging. That third area, cattle judging, has had a greater than expected impact on my life because of one learned principle. In order to judge or compare cattle or anything else, one must first determine a perfect example of that which is to be judged.
As one might suppose on reading the title of this article, I set out to describe the perfect writer’s workshop. I started by looking for a definition. Since I didn’t find a good one in my research, I made up my own and present it that my readers, both of you, might critique it.
I recently presented some material that connected two big scenes on my current novel. I had not spent as much time on it as I should have. The workshop members made that point very clear.
Many thousands of years ago, or so it seems, I graduated from Hannah High School. My graduating class consisted of twenty-one persons, fourteen girls, and seven boys. The curriculum in that small rural school was naturally limited. Two non-academic courses were considered mandatory; all girls were to take FHA, Future Homemakers of America, and all boys, FFA, Future Farmers of America.
The FFA proved to be an extraordinarily boring class except for three areas, each of which included a contest: electricity, public speaking, and cattle judging. That third area, cattle judging, has had a greater than expected impact on my life because of one learned principle. In order to judge or compare cattle or anything else, one must first determine a perfect example of that which is to be judged.
As one might suppose on reading the title of this article, I set out to describe the perfect writer’s workshop. I started by looking for a definition. Since I didn’t find a good one in my research, I made up my own and present it that my readers, both of you, might critique it.
An environment or gathering of respectful peers wherein one might use words to depict original concepts or events, and receive constructive nonjudgmental criticism of said depictions.For a participant to receive maximum benefit from a workshop, I believe one must be familiar, but not necessarily friends, with other members. My reasoning here is that in order for comments to be constructive, an evaluated writer must expect criticism from respected peers. If a writer chooses to use familiarity or intimidation to prevent criticism, the concept of a workshop is perverted.
I recently presented some material that connected two big scenes on my current novel. I had not spent as much time on it as I should have. The workshop members made that point very clear.
R - too many long sentences and holes in plotI think Columbia II workshop approaches perfection. I love the camaraderie as we get together but have no doubt the friendliest person there will savage my material if it’s not properly written. That is as it should be.
B - too many repetitions of same idea, POV errors
G2 - “that” not a good connector and two improbable scenes
K – ignorant of how young girls might react to a situation
L - didn’t like me, my work, or the horse I rode in on
D - helpful in showing proper paragraph separation and comma use
G - mixed in a positive comment with several faults
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Why Workshop
By Monet Jones
“Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.” What a bunch of nonsense! Most of us have heard this line from childhood and perhaps responded to insults with it. It’s a lie. Words hurt, criticisms hurt, and even “constructive criticisms” often cause anguish.
This is a fact that we must recognize if we intend to relate to readers or improve our writing style. Spoken words can insult; written words can destroy. As aspiring authors, we must be aware of the possible impact of our words, and particularly the concepts described.
We also quickly learn that the power of words is a double-edged sword. Words give us power to hurt others, while at the same time endowing critics with the ability to cut us to the quick.
For that reason, a certain amount of masochism is involved, particularly with the Columbia II Workshop, whenever one submits to a peer review. Writers who set up scenes with words must realize that we can’t be objective enough to anticipate all possible viewpoints, never mind spelling and grammar. Painting word pictures is always an inexact art, and therefore, accords suggested improvements.
This is the “raison d’être” for writers' workshops. It is my belief that no writer ever achieves a standard of professionalism that would make peer review redundant. You might have a rapier wit and think you have produced a “monumental tome of literary excellence,” only to have it drop into an abyss of indolent nescience, if none but a select few appreciate it. (The preceding statement is a façade of BS intended to impress the casual reader.)
“Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.” What a bunch of nonsense! Most of us have heard this line from childhood and perhaps responded to insults with it. It’s a lie. Words hurt, criticisms hurt, and even “constructive criticisms” often cause anguish.
This is a fact that we must recognize if we intend to relate to readers or improve our writing style. Spoken words can insult; written words can destroy. As aspiring authors, we must be aware of the possible impact of our words, and particularly the concepts described.
We also quickly learn that the power of words is a double-edged sword. Words give us power to hurt others, while at the same time endowing critics with the ability to cut us to the quick.
For that reason, a certain amount of masochism is involved, particularly with the Columbia II Workshop, whenever one submits to a peer review. Writers who set up scenes with words must realize that we can’t be objective enough to anticipate all possible viewpoints, never mind spelling and grammar. Painting word pictures is always an inexact art, and therefore, accords suggested improvements.
This is the “raison d’être” for writers' workshops. It is my belief that no writer ever achieves a standard of professionalism that would make peer review redundant. You might have a rapier wit and think you have produced a “monumental tome of literary excellence,” only to have it drop into an abyss of indolent nescience, if none but a select few appreciate it. (The preceding statement is a façade of BS intended to impress the casual reader.)
Saturday, June 19, 2010
The Latest Addition
Meet a New Writer
MONET M. JONES
I am currently a member of the SC Writers’ Workshop, and participate in several online writers’ groups. I retired from teaching high school technology courses, twenty-five years at Spring Valley High School in Columbia, and am now involved in writing full time. I live with my wife Kathy near the small town of Elgin, SC.
Kathy works in Columbia as an accounting assistant. Each morning before she leaves for work, we usually hike with our dog, Max, on a two-mile trail near our home.
Max is a toy poodle and my constant companion, if our granddaughter is not around. Our cat, Annabelle, more commonly known as “Mow Mow,” makes an appearance on the walking trail or in the home whenever the notion strikes her. Both pets have been the inspiration for several short stories.
My favorite activities, other than writing, include reading, walking, watching and feeding the birds that cluster to our back yard, singing in the church choir, and helping my son Nicolas with the planting and harvesting of our vegetable garden.
My first novel, Rehoboth, is in the final stages of self-publication, and I hope to have it published by CreateSpace in July of 2010. I welcome emails mjones1@sc.rr.com.
Monet's first blog entry follows.
Writing Is Like Gardening
By Monet M. Jones
As I approach the nether years of life, I have learned that the best way to garden is to let my son do it while I give him sage advice and praise. However, gardening is still an important part of my life and the obvious similarities with writing intrigue me.
A serious gardener is always planting seeds into small peat pots in anticipation of the next growing season.
A writer is constantly observing and cataloguing characters and situations in anticipation of the next story.
A gardener must decide where to plant. This decision is contingent on many factors: available land, sunlight, drainage, etc.
An author must decide what to write. This decision is contingent on many factors: area of expertise, audience, saturation, etc.
A gardener plants more seed than needed; this necessitates thinning (the very painful process of destroying some of the precious babies simply because they are too many).
A writer writes much more than needed; this necessitates self-editing (the very painful process of destroying some of the precious babies simply because they are too many).
A gardener prunes the vine for better fruit; this involves cutting away part of the vine.
A writer submits his work to peer review; this involves cutting away part of one’s soul.
A gardener must contend with insects and disease.
An author must use proper grammar and a spell checker.
A gardener must eventually destroy the plants and till the soil.
A writer must eventually submit to the ministrations of an editor.
A gardener with a good crop enjoys the fruits of his labor, and preserves food for the coming year.
A writer with a good story submits it to a publisher, who casually tears it apart and tosses it into the trash, then chortles as she sends a form letter of rejection, indicating that the company is not interested in publishing such a story at this time.
As I approach the nether years of life, I have learned that the best way to garden is to let my son do it while I give him sage advice and praise. However, gardening is still an important part of my life and the obvious similarities with writing intrigue me.
A serious gardener is always planting seeds into small peat pots in anticipation of the next growing season.
A writer is constantly observing and cataloguing characters and situations in anticipation of the next story.
A gardener must decide where to plant. This decision is contingent on many factors: available land, sunlight, drainage, etc.
An author must decide what to write. This decision is contingent on many factors: area of expertise, audience, saturation, etc.
A gardener plants more seed than needed; this necessitates thinning (the very painful process of destroying some of the precious babies simply because they are too many).
A writer writes much more than needed; this necessitates self-editing (the very painful process of destroying some of the precious babies simply because they are too many).
A gardener prunes the vine for better fruit; this involves cutting away part of the vine.
A writer submits his work to peer review; this involves cutting away part of one’s soul.
A gardener must contend with insects and disease.
An author must use proper grammar and a spell checker.
A gardener must eventually destroy the plants and till the soil.
A writer must eventually submit to the ministrations of an editor.
A gardener with a good crop enjoys the fruits of his labor, and preserves food for the coming year.
A writer with a good story submits it to a publisher, who casually tears it apart and tosses it into the trash, then chortles as she sends a form letter of rejection, indicating that the company is not interested in publishing such a story at this time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)