Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

The SolAARium: Discuss the craft of writing - Alphabetical Index in the 1st Post

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Craig, thanks for trying the exercise. My whole point was to illustrate the difference between a (purposely bland) descriptive paragraph and how much life a writer can breath into the same prose by introducing dialogue.

I think you did a great job giving the passage and the characters life. Introducing the expanded role of Geoffrey was a nice imaginative twist. Well done.

One question, how hard did you find the process?

* * *


Gentlemen, regarding the religious conversation. Thanks for keeping it civil.
 
Thanks LD. How hard was it? Hmmmmmm.

For the most part it wasn't too difficult. I read your descriptions several times and just let them roll around in my head for a few days. Pretty soon I had a firm grasp on how I saw Eleanor and Francis. Occasionally an idea for the scene would pop into my brain. When I finally sat down to write it, most of the scene was already mentally laid out. The only thing that gave me some trouble was including Sir Geoffrey.

My original plan was to have Eleanor dream of Geoffrey as Francis stormed off. Without any prior reference, this seemed forced and almost shoehorned into the existing story. After a bit of thought, I came up with the idea you all read. I liked it because it foreshadows the idea that maybe Eleanor and Geoffrey are more than aquaintances.

Hope we see a few more stabs at this enlightening exercise. I found it to be rather useful.
 
LD,

I went a different route. No one else seems to give a damn about Francis' point of view:

Francis was gently nuzzling Eleanor's ear as she sat stiffly working at his large, elegantly carved table, rarely used. His eyes fired with the passion of a madman younger than his forty years, and his dough-eyed bride knew well what was on his booze-sodden mind. She wished, and not for the first time, that her parents had honored her decision to join a convent, or, at least, hadn't gone in precisely the opposite direction.

"Stop it," she said sternly, shaking him off.

"Ah, come on baby..." he said, "you know you want it..."

"I'm trying to pay our bills."

"Can't you do that later? Remember last night, when I..." He trailed off in her ear, with the kind of thing that didn't happen in a convent. Not one to speak of, anyway.

"Later? No, later I have to go out and organize the witch burning, since you once again forgot."

"You know, you're too good to me sweet lady," he said, moving to her neck. "Let me be good to you for a while."

He felt her tremble slightly under his large, smooth fingers and smiled ruefully, shaking his head full of dark, wild hair. She was wavering.

"Mmm..."

A moment later, as her dress fell around her waist, a servant dropped a tray and stared aghast. Francis chuckled to himself, allowing the boy levity at such a sight. But, being twice Eleanor's age, he was ever afraid she would think him an old, womanly codger if she ever saw his sensitive underbelly. The apothecary had given him a cream for it, but to no avail.

"You villainous worm," he raged, breaking off a table leg and hurling it at the offending squire, who retreated to the door.

Francis tore off after him, screaming like a banshee who has just found his bansheette in bed with his brother. He threw the much smaller man, bodily, from the room, discreetly smiling an apology and his thanks for going along with the charade.

The servant grinned in return, used by now to his master's suffering at the hands of that self-pitying, tightly wound pris. Why she hadn't been returned to her father's house was something of a mystery to the staff, though they could imagine him being a tad reluctant to take the bitch back.

Francis, hoping she hadn't caught his groaning hernia when he broke the table, rounded on the fiercely blushing woman with a hungry expression, but she was doing up her dress.

"Oh, come on," he said glumly, sagging.

"It's for the best. I have too much work to do anyway," she said primly,

"Please, baby, it happens."

"Forget it. Why don't you go bother Geoffrey instead," she spat.

Francis grimaced, and silently cursed himself for ever trying to share his deepest, darkest secrets with her.

"It was a crusade," he pleaded, "everyone experiments at a crusade."
 
Hmmm, I had a general reader/audience question I thought I would throw out there to me fellow writers and see what kind of a consensus we can reach.


I was wondering how various readers here like "flowery" language in what they read; that is, language that includes lots of metaphors and personifications to make a point. Would you say that we prefer more "dry" writing that is more immediate, or is there a preference for the "flowery" when it is used properly. (note the qualifying remark about properly!)
 
Without ruining the course of the thread one of the few reasons i havent started an AAR (aside from the abortive early beta of the vinland sagas) is because of the quality of the exisiting work. It is infact extremely daunting for me personally despite having recently played several "good" and completed games. You only have to look at the early eu2 reports and the eu1 aars to see how much simplier they all were.

I have downloaded this entire thread and am presently looking for all the right clues to begin writing soon.

Great thread though.
 
Well, since we have two conversations going now... ;)

-- 1

Have mercy. I am non-native. I write like a robot. Translating from Russian. Putting methaphors right? Forget it. Workman's is best. Step to the left, step to the right, a mistake. Grammar is enemy. Someone reads, and laughs on mistakes. Scary. Thesaurus is friend. A treacherous one. Though.

But I like reading the way both posters above write... flows very naturally, and after a while I tend to forget that I am reading from a PC screen with funny colours... Lots of things to learn from those natives, innit.

So to SM's question, - yes, I prefer the 'flowery' way... haven't seen anyone abusing it here yet.

I am normally having trouble to follow the 'dry' AARs, unless they are presenting a really unique strategy... I think we are past the 'I built 1000 troops in Constantinople' (to quote Norg) stage, which is great...

-- 2

I will look forward to your AAR, Languish. Don't prepare too hard, just start it :) (I wanted to write a novel; I bought all those self-study books, and software, and signed up for courses; guess what - the novel's still in my mind. Maturing.)

This forum is quite safe to try things, I think - and because everyone goes through the same pains, folks are rather supportive. I am still amazed and how fast someone steps in when a writer is struggling... Even via PMs sometimes!

I participated at some 'creative writing' forums - not coming back there...
 
Hey, Languish - come on in, the water's fine! :)

Seriously, if you are hesitant to dive in, then talk to Lord Durham and MrT. There are a couple of 'joint effort' threads like the Free Company thread you might participate in - but ask first. :) Contact your favorite author and ask about 'guest-writing' a short scene. Write up an account of your favorite battle - Eochaid had a thread going that was all battle scenes, just search the librAARy for it.

Or pick one thing - one event, one character, one thing you did - that is memorable for you. Write it up and either post it here (I guess - best ask Lord Durham first) or send it to a couple of people for critique.

What I'm trying to say is that you don't have to write a lot to get started. My experience has been that people around here are supportive and friendly.

So just write something - something you care about - and share it with us.

Please? :)

And Gaijin - if you write like a robot I am SERIOUSLY going to study robotics. You have turned out a nice phrase at least once or twice... :D
 
It's rather nice seeing this old thread stir to life for a while. :)

Sm, I tend toward a 'flowery' use of language when I write, with a caveat, however. 'Austria and the War of the Spanish Succession' was written in the third person, so I chose a fairly straightforward, workmanlike style. (though I usually get carried away with adjectives at times :) ). For 'The Napoleonic Wars' I used the first person, and conciously tried to make the speech patterns and descriptions as flowery as possible, trying to capture some of the style that writers like Arthur Conan Doyle used at the turn of the century. Whether it was successful was another matter.

My work in the FC is mixed. I use that platform to experiment with different ideas, depending on what POV I'm writing from. As for metaphors and personifications, let's just say I love to play with the English language and leave it to the reader to dig out any hidden meaning. :)


Languish, Gaijin de Moscu and Director speak with much wisdom. Never be afraid to write, especially here. We are all very supportive. In fact, I really enjoy watching someone's skill develop over time. I could easily rhyme off at least a dozen people who have improved their skills by plugging away on this forum. I'm one of them.

Like G de M, I have spent much time in writer's workshops, taking courses, reading how-to books, having my work torn to shreds in 'critiquing circles', but nothing beats practice.

And in the EU II AAR forum nobody will ever criticise you for trying.
 
Last edited:
Languish, RH, Director, By all means try the FC. I haven't written a single AAR, but I still got a shot at writing in that thread.

I'll readily admit I was more than a little apprehensive the first few times, and I still check by PM once in a while before posting, but is fun and had improved my writing (IMHO) greatly, even from my fisrt to my last post which is only what 5 months?

Do give it a shot LD is VERY supportive and so are the rest of "the guys" there:D I have even begun thinking that maybe one day sometime perhaps in some distant future :) I just might try an AAR myself, if only I could get enough playtime to have something to write about :D

V

PS oh, and lurking helps, you can pick up alot here and in other AARs before you try out, it doesn't have to be LD, MrT or SM style the first time ;) Flowery style has nothing to do with quality :p :D
 
Languish,

Er, ditto on everything that's already been said... And a few comments of my own---

-Pick a style, technique, genre, etc., that feels the most natural to start off. If you prefer (writing) in the vein of earlier, simpler AARs, with straightforward summaries and only slightly distilled game data, do it. Look around-people will read, and many will give you feedback.

-Feel free to post ideas and clippings in this thread for critique or help. You can also look back a little ways and do LD's superbly entertaining and beneficial writing exercise, if you need a bit of a leg up.

-PM me or anyone else who's responded with words of encouragement, join the Free Company or guest post (you're welcome to give Hitchhiker's a go-just message me).

-Don't demand too much from your first effort. No one here is going to lampoon you if your spelling isn't perfect and your prose isn't instantly of professional quality. This is, foremost, a friendly environment for any writer, aspiring, aspired or enthusiast, at any stage.

Lastly, write, post, learn. It's the greatest joy, particularly in an atmosphere such as this.

Oh, and one more thing, get in touch with Lord_Durham. He doesn't get nearly enough credit for the amount of work he does to make this place what it is, but he'll help you in any way he can. And I have no qualms about volunteering his PM box.
 
First off, I'm VERY happy to see this thread active again. Maybe if the activity continues, we will see become reattached to the bAAR in stickie land.:)

Anyway, Languish glad to hear you plan on joining the FC. I can tell you from personal experience and having watched others, it can only make you a better writer. Keep in mind that you have many valuable resources in these forums. LD, MrT, Director, Morlac, Secret Master, and Bismark have all contributed a lot to this thread and I'm sure would be more than willing to assist you. I myself have picked a few of those brains from time to time.

V, when are we going to see this AAR? I for one would love to get a look at it.:)

Lastly I'd like to start a new topic. What makes for a good antagonist? I have always loved a good villian or advesary for the hero. To me they are many times more entertianing then the actual protagonist. What qualities make such a character compelling? I for one always hated a villian with no background or explaination of his motives. I need to know what makes this guy tick. Why does he do the things he does?

Lastly what are some of your all time favorite villians from literature and film. What are some of the worst villians? Please include a why so this doesn't degenerate into a poll type discussion.
 
Craig, That wouldn't happen to be a certain turk and a certain turkish devil?:D

I didn't say when did I?:)

As to villains I to "hate" a very good, good-guy, but I don't really like villians, they are usually to "evil", I prefer flawed heroes.

I can't really name neither a favorite villain nor an example of a flawede hero, but I tend to like that the good guy only reluctantly enters his job, that he is selfish, lazy, has a checkered past and you are in doubt what he will do next or what is motives really are. Preferably he will do at least one bad thing.

Don't get me wrong, I too like Star wars and LotR with its archtype heroes and villians, but actually what I liked most about LotR (as a book) was the many crossovers, good guy turning bad, like Sauraman.

Man this is turning into verbosity, MrT style, I think I'll stop now.

V
 
Languish: Probably the single most important thing to remember when posting in this forum is just how amazingly supportive and friendly people are. You will not find your material ripped apart, criticised or trashed. People here are genuinely happy to read what you post, point out the stuff they like, ask questions, and so on. If you ask for helpful tips, they'll probably inundate you with suggestions and won't be in the slightest way annoyed if you don't follow them all. Tell a story in whatever way feels comfortable to you and entertains you and you can be certain that others will happily follow along.

SM: I realise that I neglected to answer your earlier question re "flowery language". I tend to follow along similar lines to LD on this one. You suit the language of the writing to the character or AAR...and in my case you then make it very, very verbose. :D

Craig: Interesting topic.

In my mind the single most important aspect that a main protagonist can have is to NOT be static. There needs to be development along some line (or lines) that makes him/her interesting...be that something related to their actions, or perhaps a transition of character, or the evolving consequences of some fatal flaw, or whatever. If the protagonist becomes static and predictable then he/she becomes "boring".

When applied to an antagonist this is equally important - if not more so. Rare is the person who is simply evil for evil's sake - so it becomes an issue of delving into the why's of their background...determining a motivation that has led them along the course they are taking and then writing them consistently with this in mind.

I think that in the end the most interesting antagonists are best defined by how they interact with the protagonist and it's this relationship that makes or breaks it. You can have two scintillating and well-developed characters and still “fail” if they way they respond to one another is poorly established or haphazardly written.

One of my favourite antagonists – if you’d call her one – was SM’s Isabella. Just read through that section of his AAR to see just how critical all of this is and how superbly it works when the author pays attention to it.

I’m also of the opinion that you and I are currently co-writing a pretty damn good pair of antagonists in the FC. ;)
 
Originally posted by MrT

I’m also of the opinion that you and I are currently co-writing a pretty damn good pair of antagonists in the FC. ;)
Click to expand...

I'll have to say that I agree with MrT that it is not the personality that makes a great character whether good or bad, it is the that character develops and interacts, not only with other characters, but with his entire mileu (sp?).

Now, this is NOT meant as critism or nitpicking :) but I never saw Pasha (assuming that's the character you are talking about?) as an antagonist. Opposing the FC yes. But not antagonising :D

In his world I see him as a fairly honorable man, doing his best to bring the city down, yes, but an enemy will always try that.

maybe I'm just not clear on the definitions??:confused:

Thanks for listening :)

V
 
Lastly I'd like to start a new topic. What makes for a good antagonist? I have always loved a good villian or advesary for the hero. To me they are many times more entertianing then the actual protagonist. What qualities make such a character compelling? I for one always hated a villian with no background or explaination of his motives. I need to know what makes this guy tick. Why does he do the things he does?
Click to expand...

Wow. I think I should probably chime in on this one, since my werewolf AAR's had a really spiff antagonist.

What makes for a good antagonist? Believability. That's all that matters, IMHO, unless you're breaking out the crazy fifty thousand word AAR deals, in which case you probably need development. In a short-form, however, for the most part you can abandon development of an antagonist; better to spend that time giving your protagonist a second or third dimension. But if the reader can't really BELIEVE that hte bad guy's being good in his own eyes, then all bets are off.

Everyone believes in something. Whoever believes in the opposite of you is the villain.
 
V, I definately see Pasha as an antagonist. He opposes the FC (the protagonist) so therefore he is an antagonist. Though I don't see Pasha as a villian. Like you said, Pasha is man that lives by his perceptions about honor. A great story can be told when there are two honorable characters that are in opposition. The movie, The Enemy Below is perfect example. Both the US destroyer captian and the German sub commander are good decent men, and skilled naval commanders. Still Robert Mitchum, US, is the protagonist, and Kurt Jurgens (I think), German, is the protagonist.

Villians are a subset of antogonists. They usually don't possess the same ethics and morals of the society they live in. They are teh proverbial "bad guys.":eek: :eek: :eek: The Bey would fit into this category. The question is about antagonists in general and villians in paticular.

I do agree wiht you that I usually can't stand perfect goody-two-shoes heros. I like a flawed character or even one that ventures over into the dark side of things.

I do think you all are on to something with the idea of the relationship between the two. There has to be something there - tension, mutual respect, hatred. The relationship can be fluid or not, but it needs that spark. Great discussion guys. Give me more.:)
 
The Secret Master walks in and puts on his literary criticism hat before speaking.

I think before a discussion of antagonists and protagonists ensues, we had better define them properly. Otherwise, this discussion will only confuse people and lead us nowhere.

First, a protagonist is "the prinicpal character in a literary work." For example, Hamlet is a protagonist, as is Macbeth, Lear, and Othello; however, being a protagonist does not tell us whether the character is good, evil, or an idiot. For example, Macbeth is a protagonist, but he is decidedly an evil man by the end of his play. On the other hand, in the first section of Faulkner's Sound and the Fury, Benjy is the protagonist; however, Benjy has the mind of a three year-old, making him decidedly bizarre as protagonist. Also note that being a protagonist does not automatically imply martial conflict of any sort. Dowell, in Ford Maddox Ford's The Good Soldier never does anything heroic or worthwhile; however, he is the protagonist simply because the story is about him, regardless of how ridiculous his character may be.

The antagonist is that "who contends with or opposes others." Usually, this is the chief character that is in opposition to the protagonist, but it does not have to be. Also, a true, bona fide antagonist is not a requirement to a work. If one wants to play fast and loose with the definition of an atagonist, then "characters" such as Fate, the weather, and natural forces can be antagonists. But an antagonist does not have to be evil. To borrow the Scottish play once again, Macduff is the antagonist of the play, but he is the hero trying to remove a murderous tyrant from the Scottish throne by killing Macbeth.

One thing that can confuse the nature of antagonists and protagonists is the radical changing of narrative viewpoints. For example, in the FC, we have different authors writing for different characters. When LD writes about Captain desperately trying to counter the Pasha's and the sultan's military moves, he is the protagonist. On the other hand, when MrT and the others write for the Muslims, the very same characters can "swap" roles. The Pasha is a protagonist in his "native" segments, while in the main story he is an antagonist. This is nothing new to writing, as it occurs in real literature, written after 1914 or so, all the time. In the aforementioned Siound and the Fury, the novel is told in four sections, each one narrated by a different character. Benjy protagonist of his own section, where Jason hardly appears at all, while in Jason's section, Benjy is just a nuisance. In Benjy's narrative, the character of Quentin (the daughter, not older brother Quentin), hardly appears, while in Jason's section she is the antagonist.
 
Ah, what the hell does SM know, anyway? ;) :D

Good clarification, and spot on, as they would say in the olde country.

Craig, The Enemy Below is a great cat-and-mouse movie. (yes, it was Curt Jurgens) In fact, the movie was the basis for one of my all time favourite classic Trek episodes, Balance of Terror, featuring the first introduction of the Romulans (quick, who played the Romulan commander?)

As for heroes/villains, I think it's no secret that I prefer all my characters to be various shades of grey. Captain is a 'hero', but he has serious doubts, suffers from a horrific past, and makes mistakes. The only thing that keeps him from the 'dark side' is his sense of honour, and that's bourne out of disgust from his early years when he fought for the Cross. (make sense?) I purposely set out to make sure he doesn't have 'all the answers', and am not afraid to have him 'goof up'.

By the same token, I enjoy a 'villain' that has a sense of nobility, or a streak of compassion, a fondness for cats - whatever. In my mind heroes and villains are interchangable. It's the circumstances that shape them.

If the Fall of Constantinople was told from the Ottoman side, then the FC would be the villains.

Favourite villains from literature or film? Well, Lady from The Black Company is definitely one of my all time favourites. She's also the only written female character that I've actually fallen in love with. (I know, that one's hard to explain. It's just that she appealed to me, which is a credit to Glen Cook, the author)

One villain that never worked for me was Artemis Enteri from Salvatore's Drizzt series. His character was a case of 'too-much too-often'. He just wouldn't die/go away/ step aside. I found I tired of him rather quickly, which almost ruined the Drizzt series of books for me.
 
My all time least favourite protagonist was Thomas Covenant. I found myself wishing - throughout the entire Illearth series - that some important part of him would fall off so he could just get over it all...the stupid prick! It's amazing that Donaldson could write that bad a central character and still make the rest of it semi-enjoyable....even more amazing when you read the Mirror series which was superbly done!

I thought that Anne Rice did a credible job with Lestat as a sort of antogonist in the first book (Interview) and I reall enjoyed some of Herbert's Dune antogonists.
 
Secret master - Now I know why they call you the Secret Master! Very nicely put!


Has anyone here read Ian Pears' strange-but-wonderful "An Instance of the Fingerpost"? You should. His 'Art History' series of mysteries are nice, but 'Fingerpost' is amazing.

He takes the same story - the murder of an Oxford don, set in the last days before Charles II returns to the throne of England - and tells it four times, from four different viewpoints.

It is long and rich, rich, rich. Add in the fact that none of the characters are who they seem to be - in fact, none of the characters is honest with the reader about who they really are at all.

The phrase Tour De Force was made for this book, but that phrase has already been utterly worn out.



One of the marks of superlative fiction (IMHO) is a memorable villain. Like the Romulan commander alluded to by LD (*cough*Mark*Sarek*Lenard*cough*), who is an honorable man doing what he thinks best, or Ahab (Khan, for another Trek reference) who is perfectly reasonable when not possessed. :D

I don't know if anyone else considers Ahab a villain, but anyone who loses his ship and crew over a fixation on a whale gets a downcheck in my book.

My favorite kind of villain, however, is one who is honorable, principled. capable - and operating with moral/ethical blind spots that he, by definition, cannot see (Asimov was so good with this type - see 'Foundation' or 'Caves of Steel').

My own dear Doctor Rivers (see 'AtSM', sig) was a failed attempt to take a character through a breakdown caused by the collision of his morals with the medieval and renaissance world, and lead him out the other side. I should revisit the subject sometime at more length and in far greater depth (and with far greater writing skills, too).



As the writer laments in 'The Screwtape Letters' there are so few souls who have fully embraced evil and given themselves over to the dark. They can be fascinating, although I personally do not have any biographies of famous Nazis on my shelves. Even here, among the wierdly twisted, we meet a lot of people who are trying to rationalize away the evil they are doing.

'Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal.' - Robert A. Heinlein
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back