Example: I've been on a MASSIVE Becky Chambers binge lately, because I think the way she makes you see characters in your head WITHOUT EVER REALLY DESCRIBING THEM is brilliant.
You think she's described them. She mostly hasn't. She implies and let's you build your own version.
Once I spotted that's what she does, I realised how fucking brilliant it is. It totally hands over the power to the reader to see the characters mostly how they'd like them to be, but still leaves them feeling like they're on a narrative journey she's created.
it's amazing.
She creates a minimum framework for how they look, only sketching in the bits important for the actual plot, then gives the freedom to the reader.
I love that. I think it's amazing. I want to do it myself going forward.
That's what I get from reading other writers.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Spare some love for Collingwood. Legit brilliant commander in his own right. First into battle on Royal Sovereign. Took charge after Nelson got sniped by the French lad using bot hax.
Hated flogging. Loved by his men. Walked his dog and planted acorns for fun. #TrafalgarDay2021
It was 100% Nelson's plan behind Trafalgar, but he couldn't have pulled it off without Collingwood.
His plan was to break with existing strategy and attack in TWO columns, splitting the enemy line.
In gaming terms, that meant he needed TWO tanks out front. Not one.
TWO ships would have to draw all the fire from the enemy ships around them on the way in.
TWO commanders were going to have hold their nerve, lead those lines and punch through:
Nelson led the first in Victory.
He trusted Collingwood with the other in Royal Sovereign.
Think when we talk of horses that you see them, printing their proud hooves in the receding earth.
For, t'is your thoughts that now must deck our kings.
Carry them from here to there,
jumping o'er time.
Turning the accomplishments of an age into an hourglass.
For the which supply admit me, chorus to this history, to prologue-like your humble patience pray:
Gently to hear.
Kindly to judge.
Our play.
<Shakespeare's Theatre Completed. All unhappy citizens in the city are made content.>
Yes, yes, I know any MP COULD vote against the whip, theoretically, but there is always a lot of nuance in play with that. Let's not pretend there isn't. It's not how life works.
A big issue these days is removing nuance and oversimplification of politics.
Yes, I know that there's a tiny bit of grey writing on the full voting record page that gives some vague indication of whether they toed the party line, but that's really not clear enough.
Because in most instances, it's the BIGGEST driver of how they voted.
I've also found this is why I rarely write in a linear fashion. I tend to have a very rough timeline of events, and then over time scenes within that just get written as the right emotional mood hits me, or a smell triggers me etc. etc.
Then BOSH. 2000 more words done.
Also means I'm hugely wasteful as a writer. I end up throwing away a LOT when the full story starts to emerge and suddenly 'scenes' don't fit.
Which is agonising enough in the short story format. I'm discovering it's utterly traumatising (but necessary) in the novel process.