Skip to main content

Today in research

Today's topic was the goldrush in Colorado. It's for a short story, so I didn't have to go into too much depth. Yet. We'll see when I read draft 3 what I need, but I'm still working through draft two.

A few days ago I tweeted that even my second drafts suck. This was in response (well, more in comment to, because I didn't reply to the actual person) to someone who said they had gotten to the point where they could reliably produce a decent first draft. But my second drafts aren't all bad. By the time I get towards the ending, there's much less red on the page. It's just the first half of both first and second drafts that is really, really awful. Posible causes:
  • I start writing before the story has jelled in my mind
  • My endings are really bad, but I've run out of steam on the editing towards the end, so I don't mark up as much
  • I feel the need to explain my world at the beginning of the story, and then I need to take that out and spread it around later

I don't have a solution yet, but it's something to think about.

With this story in particular, I didn't have a setting chosen, though I had characters and action, so most of the stuff I'm cutting out is rethinking the setting. Hence the connection to today's research. Also, I wrote this first draft on the computer, and my work habits, especially with short stories, tend to be a little non-linear on the computer (I think this is why I spend so much time moving things around in Toothbrushing Club, because I never had the structure firmly in mind). I wonder if I'll have the same problem when I look some more at my nanowrimo project. When I write on paper, I go straight through from beginning to end. In the current project, there's almost no exposition at all, which is a flaw, too.

Popular posts from this blog

Best TW feedback ever

Over at the dayjob, SMEs are feverishly trying to get documents back to me all marked up, in preparation for the release that's supposed to happen the week I'm back from VP. Today's best comment: Unfortunately not true. SMEs, they're so cute.

What I read: January 2024

"Morgan is my name" by Sophie Keech. Office book club selection. It gets exhausting to read about plucky young heroines who are terrible at needlework all the time. I should probably read some Jo Walton. I mean, you can be good at needlework and other things too! I didn't find this book very surprising. The first half was kind of boring, but it got better towards the end.  LHC #233: "The Shifter" by Janice Hardy. I read her writing advice website regularly, so I thought I should maybe read an actual book to find out if she was worth it. Oh my, the voice of this book grabbed me immediately. The worldbuilding seemed shady but the voice was solid. It wasn't very subtle, but I might not be the target audience.  LHC #234: "Ragnarok: The End of the Gods" by A. S. Byatt. At this point with my library account, I'm just guessing. I know there was something by Byatt there? I suspect there was. I did not know what to make of this book. Strange, but it w

What I read: March 2024

  LHC #240: "Vita Nostra" by  Maryna and Serhiy Dyachenko. Translated by Julia Meitov Hersey. All I knew going in was dark academia. This was a neat thing to read after A Deadly Education last month. The students can leave this school at summer and winter break, but maybe they shouldn't. Also, interesting education method, providing Sasha with a CD player and punishing her if she leaves it in the mode where it plays all the tracks in sequence.  "Norse Mythology" by Neil Gaiman. When I finished Ragnarok by AS Byatt (last month? January?) I was thinking it might have made more sense if I had any knowledge of the subject matter. The boy had left this lying around, and it was not a tough read.  LHC #241: "Science on a mission: How Military funding shaped what we do and don't know about the ocean" by Naomi Oreskes.  I deferred this once because it was so long. History of science is challenging for me to read, because of the need to get a grasp on dispr