Comments for Storytellers Unplugged

Comment on Do u c wot ic? by redheadedfemme

redheadedfemme — Sun, 13 May 2012 01:21:10 +0000

I hate textspeak. I’m on Twitter, but I absolutely refuse to use it. It’s an interesting challenge for me, to edit my thought down to 140 characters without resorting to this sort of alphabetical bastardization.

Yes, I’m a cranky old fart. Why do you ask?

Comment on Asking questions or getting answers? by Carole Lanham

Carole Lanham — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 04:07:24 +0000

So many pearls of wisdom here. A fascinating and informative piece! Thanks for sharing.

Comment on Asking questions or getting answers? by Robert Jones

Robert Jones — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 12:21:12 +0000

Ideal!

Comment on Asking questions or getting answers? by Bev Vincent

Bev Vincent — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:17:51 +0000

My favorite interview subjects are the ones where I can ask a question and they will talk for several minutes — and it’s all good material. I can just sit back and let them go.

Comment on Asking questions or getting answers? by Robert Jones

Robert Jones — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 19:16:23 +0000

Thank you for your thoughtful and observant piece.
I share your distaste for interviewers who skew the ratio of interviewer talk compared to interviewee talk in favor of the former. Another irritation is created by interviewers who verbally anticipate what the interviewee is going to say about a subject, seemingly just to prove that h/she also knows something about it.
A very popular Canadian interviewer who had an exceptionally high-rated interviewing style was asked by her daughter, who was about to embark on her own interviewing career, for advise on how she went about interviewing. The daughter then sat back with a pad and pencil to take notes. Her mother began by saying that she asked questions as simply and clearly as possible. Her daughter noted that and, pencil ready, asked what she did next. Her mother said, “I listen.”

Comment on How Committed Are You, Really? by Robert Jones

Robert Jones — Sat, 14 Apr 2012 23:16:00 +0000

So that’s what that humming has been all about. I’ve heard it on and off without actually thinking about it. Now that I am thinking about it, I realize that, since I recently began devoting almost full time to writing, the hum is almost continuous.

Thank you, Brian, for turning a light on the matter. May your hum never fade.

Bob

Comment on How Committed Are You, Really? by Thomas Sullivan

Thomas Sullivan — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:33:56 +0000

What’s that humming sound? Yeah, you’ve just written an anthem for all the folk who live for optimum, for honesty – those mostly lonely bastards who will never be understood or even known. And you’ve written this for that part of many thousands, perhaps millions, who have some degree of “the call of the wild” in their souls. But there’s the great divide. Because I don’t know that those latter types can ever understand the word “commitment” as you use it, or the sterling examples you cite, without taking that last dark/bright step, walking the walk, but not talking the talk (because being that individualistic means you can’t share it, unless you’re talking to yourself), into a realm where there is no recognition, no rank ordering, no status-seeking, no pecking order but rather simply and profoundly a universe of one’s self, top down and bottom up. Anyone who knows that kind of commitment – seductive isolation, really – knows that the best of almost anything goes unknown. Thanks for putting it so well, Brian. I believe that’s about as close as anyone can come to sharing the concept.

Comment on Logic: Without It, Your Story May Have A Serious Neurological Disorder by Brian Hodge

Brian Hodge — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:29:33 +0000

Thanks for your input.

As for the eagles, not necessarily. Conceivably, this could’ve been done when the Nazgul were still roaming around the Shire on horses. Even if not, once the flock does finally mix it up with their winged mounts, the eagles are clearly faster, more nimble flyers who make mincemeat of them.

But all this … or, say, coming up with some tortured rationale for Aragorn’s seemingly shortsighted decisions … is really beside the point. We could debate this stuff until the hobbits come home, but the point isn’t necessarily to ramrod these alternate options through. There’s not much in LOTR that I’d change, if I magically had that ability.

Instead, this is simply a call for storytellers to look at their work with some objectivity, and to be aware of these potential gaps, and close them off before readers or viewers (and, not least, acquiring editors) have a chance to get their fingernails in and start peeling.

Comment on Logic: Without It, Your Story May Have A Serious Neurological Disorder by mo

mo — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:47:57 +0000

I like the point you make, but I think your examples are flawed. For example…

(1) Why doesn’t Frodo just fly in on an eagle to destroy the Ring? Sauron had spies and servants watching land and air, and he knew a hobbit from the Shire had the Ring. A giant eagle riding in from the north with a hobbit on its back would have been easy to spot, and easy pickings for the Nazgul. The point of the small fellowship was to sneak in under Sauron’s nose, because even in his weakened state (as a giant floaty eyeball), he was still a formidable foe.

Similar can be done with your other examples. The quick and easy answer movie-goers want doesn’t always fit the logic of the world the story is set in. That’s not a lapse in logic on the story’s part, but perhaps more a slip-up in adequate world-building.

Comment on Logic: Without It, Your Story May Have A Serious Neurological Disorder by Brian Hodge

Brian Hodge — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:00:55 +0000

Thanks for the observations, Sully. And yeah, gaffes are great fun, but nothing that warrant a look. Although a roundup of favorite gaffes like your friend’s boomeranging hat, now that could have possibilities. One of my favorites is in the director’s cut of the movie True Romance, when Christian Slater squeezes 7 shots out of his revolver when he kills Gary Oldman.

>Even if you are somehow immune to such lapses, you may be accused of cumbersome efforts to explain everything logically.

Hah! I’ve been there. Lately, I’ve been going through a scan of my third novel, and remember a line (in an overall good review) which said something like, “You may notice near the end that Hodge appears to be pushing like crazy to make sure everything happens in order.”

>Rather often said editor may not see the connective tissue that you’ve carefully installed to explain everything. YOU may not even realize what you’re losing in the way of necessary logic if you are slashing wholesale. The creative process is often the slow bleeding out of the soul,

A great example of this, that I was reminded of the other day, is Sergio Leone’s Once Upon A Time In America. At its full, intended (and restored) length of nearly 4 hours, it’s widely considered a masterpiece. In its original studio-hacked form of barely over 2 hours, it was panned as almost incomprehensible.

Such a fine line sometimes.