This does come as quite a surprise to me, very much so. I haven't considered Correspondence a lesser work of mine, but I certainly feel that my characters are somewhat... undercooked. Yes there have been quite a few chapters now, but seeing there is such a vast array of characters, we have hardly met them at all. Take the man behind the title, William Howard Russell, we have seen him in three chapters now, but I don't feel we know that much about him. What makes him tick? Can you see his face when you read his description? I don't feel that is so. Some characters are easy enough to imagine, Colonel Ainslie is just... nice, and he has a gliggly wife, something we have all probably seen somewhere. Major Grant, a depressing though sometimes witty character, and with his name you can imagine the more famour American General of that name. Captain Buckle, awkward, bad at conversation. These characters aren't jumps out of the book; if anything they are very stand of the line, and I while they may be noticable, I don't think any of them have a developed enough individuality. They just appear as generic character 1...
I can only blame myself. You see, unlike some, I don't plan my writing. I have a start point, a couple of middle references, and an end point and I just fill in the details as I go. It is very bad practice. I thought that being about an actual historical event, Correspondence wouldn't require that planning, but how wrong was I. The characters weren't planned around each other, as part of a coherent story; more as individual stories surrounding one event. It gave the writing a clumsy and rigid feel that I just did not like. There was no clarity. As a result, I called it to a temporary halt to work on another AAR that I decided I would plan out quite thoroughly. I will take time, eventually, to build up a more convincing story to the characters, something more interesting of this award, but as I was saying in private to Cartimandua, the writing can only been judged by the individual, and my views, like most writers, are simply the negative side of things. It is a joy to know that others think differently, and that they feel my writing is having the desired effect. So thank you, Cartimandua, and everyone who congratulated me, and everyone who reads Correspondence. It is your view on my writing that make this forum such a special place. Be it highly critical or full of praise, to understand my writing in such a way as you can, it is a gift that not all writers recieve, so thank you for it, thank you so much.
I can only blame myself. You see, unlike some, I don't plan my writing. I have a start point, a couple of middle references, and an end point and I just fill in the details as I go. It is very bad practice. I thought that being about an actual historical event, Correspondence wouldn't require that planning, but how wrong was I. The characters weren't planned around each other, as part of a coherent story; more as individual stories surrounding one event. It gave the writing a clumsy and rigid feel that I just did not like. There was no clarity. As a result, I called it to a temporary halt to work on another AAR that I decided I would plan out quite thoroughly. I will take time, eventually, to build up a more convincing story to the characters, something more interesting of this award, but as I was saying in private to Cartimandua, the writing can only been judged by the individual, and my views, like most writers, are simply the negative side of things. It is a joy to know that others think differently, and that they feel my writing is having the desired effect. So thank you, Cartimandua, and everyone who congratulated me, and everyone who reads Correspondence. It is your view on my writing that make this forum such a special place. Be it highly critical or full of praise, to understand my writing in such a way as you can, it is a gift that not all writers recieve, so thank you for it, thank you so much.