Nine Thousand Words of Novel Project

[Mr Orange]

I Voyager, i think i read somewhere in one of the posts above this is a video feed your MC is watching? if so, it feels a bit omniscient. i feel we're seeing things that the camera wouldn't - such as gestures etc that are happening out of shot.

also it gets abit technical. and sometimes it seems like you're explaining just to show how much you know, not move the story along. for example i think this entire paragraph could be removed:

The printer is busily laying down the final carbon-plastic layers on an object, the making of which has been this printer’s life’s purpose for the last six hours. The three piece symbol stands tall and bold: ‘3’, ‘x’ and ‘I’, embossed capital letters six inch tall, two inch thick, matt black and shimmering with white light. The stylized 3xI is an abbreviation for the name of a popular technology conference called “Invention, Innovation and Information.” The letters are made of compressed bands of black and glowing-white plastic supported by internal carbon pillars. The black and white shades meet in competing wave-fronts which vibrate against each other on the visual spectrum. The human brain has only enough sensitivity to process the black information being picked up by the eye. As such the white was pushed aside by those brains and appeared not to exist despite indeed being printed in those letters. The glow effect of the white plastic still hovered around it. Visually there was a black acronym which glowed white.

i would be interested to find out where this story is going, but think i personally would get too bogged down in the technical stuff to continue.

just my opinion of course, and i am someone who struggles to cut out extraneous information too, so know how hard it can be...

 

[chrispenycate]

Here goes. Normally I'm known for getting out my red pen and nitpicking out punctuation and grammar faults. However, I suspect there are quite a few more major structural faults to look into (ignoring the duplication of paragraph 5), so grammar and punctuation can wait another rewrite.

I am one of the most technophilic members here, and one of the most gadget happy, and your description is on the edge of my comfort zone, even the new, pared-down version. At least for a beginning; I could probably cruise it if I were already immersed in the story. And that means you're going to have great difficulty in persuading an agent or publisher to touch it – they've got a chart that shows them that every word more than two syllables long, or containing more than (IIRC) seven letters, every word that does not fall into the 'thousand most used words in the English language, every subordinate clause, every sentence more than ten words long reduces the sales potential of a book (Really. I'm not inventing that; I ran into it while dumbing down a submission to an American publisher. And, as you may well imagine, had problems with it. They have a computer program to estimate comprehensibility based on simplicity that I fell foul of). And a theory that, if you don't get a murder in the first ten seconds (after the boring, repetitive tilters, obviously; they've got the sponsor's name on them) your viewer is going to change channels looking for something exciting. Ooops, what, wrong rant, but the spirit carries over.

All the details about the teleconferencing; how important are they to the main story? Camera angles, excuses for personal descriptions (although I don't see in [

The camera focuses on the left side his narrow bearded face while he sits. His face is dead-pan granite and silhouetted by dirty-brown hair hanging in a pony-tail over his back.

how, in a profile shot his face can be 'silhouetted' against pulled-back hair), technical details about a process which I already know quite well (all right, I'm behind the microphones but we interact with the vision people) and does not feel critical to the unrolling of the plot build a background to a décor that doesn't feel critical.

The view shifts to a camera zoomed close and fixed parallel to the woman sitting next to him. She is introduced as Senator Audrey Ross.

All right, it's probably only me who goes to broadcast conventions and thinks: 'Fixed angle. Huh, they've sent out the second raters; not even a motorised head?', but there's a lot of scene-setting there that I'm certain you could tighten up, or even eliminate, giving the potential buyer (and before him, the potential agent) the excuse to say "Well, I've read nearly a whole page and nothings happened to convince me to go any further…".

Once seated he drinks out of a glass of water on the table next to him, puts the cup down and folds his arms.

What useful information does this give us? Apart from the fact he picks up a glass and puts down a cup, this is filling time when he performs the action, and slowing the advance toward interesting data in the text.

The view shifts to a camera zoomed close and fixed parallel to the woman sitting next to him. She is introduced as Senator Audrey Ross. She is plump with the straight back of practiced military posture. She looks intently at Tiedemann with round blue eyes embedded proportionately in her round Caucasian face.

Camera set 'parallel' so you can only get profile shots? And what do you mean by 'proportionally'?

He plays the camera angles intelligently and absent minded, angling his face in case this or that shot may be on him at this or that time.

Is
the fidget important later in the story? Oh, yes, I know him (the solution is to put a full face camera in front of him, where he can see it, and rewire the red light to preview bus 2. This paralyses him. But the vision mixer for the conference can't be expected to know this. Why do I think it's a conference, rather than a TV broadcast? Because the PA echoes, bad form for a conference hall, intolerable for a studio); but unless he has more importance than suggested, he doesn't warrant all this attention.

It was referred to by its inventor as a low-cost carbon nano-compressor and extruder, written down in shorthand as an LCC-NCE and it allowed the printer to use a powerful alternative to plastic: open sourced carbon nano-tubes.

“Open Source” guest speaker Tiedemann Murray explained earlier, “only means that the design had been constructed by a team I assembled over the internet.

It is clear from the first paragraph that the nano-tubes themselves are 'open source' (i.e. not manufacturer specific). The second paragraph suggests that the software to produce another of the machines (assuming you had the raw materials and one of the machines already) was freely available. Despite lots of words, we are not actually informed about the legal situation (or who's going to be making a fortune selling the 'inks').

 

[Ivanya]

Whilst the modifications definitely improve the piece by breaking up the info dump, I have to agree that there are still parts which slow the whole thing down and leave me skimming. I'd still suggest keeping this section...

Those rods ferry self-propelled step-motors which shudder smoothly, if not soundlessly for as little as a half-millimetre in one direction or another. The motors work together by pivoting, separating and merging with other rods to move the three most important parts of the machine: two plastic extruders – six year old technology - and something new. It was referred to by its inventor as a low-cost carbon nano-compressor and extruder, written down in shorthand as an LCC-NCE and it allowed the printer to use a powerful alternative to plastic: open sourced carbon nano-tubes.

for later on in the story if it is necessary at all. If these details are not essential for advancing the plot, I'd cut them out altogether.

 

[I_Voyager]

I'm very limited in the times and ways I can respond to this thread between work and the technology I have to reply (phone and tablet). So forgive me if I am replying conservatively. It's no matter of being stung, I enjoy the critiques. I can't go into great detail replying to some of the points made during this fifteen minute break. So, again, forgive me.

I have complex social-political views born of a wide philosophical and scientific view. They are the basis for my story. Consider what Ayn Rand set out to do with her books. Even the method of literature re-enforces her point, regardless of who this appealed to. I am not writing what Ayn Rand has written, mind you. Many times she avoids unnecessary technical details, but her purpose is philisophical and she never reduces the philosophy. She wrote to express a new view. Based on a wide study I haven't found a view like mine. Parts of my views exist disconnected and in many places, often burdened by an incomplete frame of reference. But where her views exist in philosophy, mine exist in a re-connect between philosophy and science.

It's difficult to understand where I am going with my story in fifteen hundred words. Many of the critiques have demonstrated that I haven't communicated the direction sufficiently. But the resolutions to my mistakes are, too, limited by my failure. Would a quick and dirty synopsis help you all see the bigger picture and thus help establish a better mutual foundation for revision? I can't ask this of a publisher. But I can ask you this.

 

[Kissmequick]

they've got a chart that shows them that every word more than two syllables long, or containing more than (IIRC) seven letters, every word that does not fall into the 'thousand most used words in the English language, every subordinate clause, every sentence more than ten words long reduces the sales potential of a book (Really. I'm not inventing that; I ran into it while dumbing down a submission to an American publisher. And, as you may well imagine, had problems with it. They have a computer program to estimate comprehensibility based on simplicity that I fell foul of).

This is news to me, and I've subbed an pubbed in several places. None of them used any kind of chart, or soft ware, to sift the words. They simply read them, as any reputable publisher will do. One that uses this kind of thing is not one worth subbing to.

What agents and publishers want and look for (and do not use charts for) is this:

A start that engages people. And for me, the start does not engage me. It is too distant. For me, I need a character straight off. One I can identify with, one I can root for. Not a cold video (YMMV obviously). But this start is all scene setting, and no character or action. Nothing except, set the scene. I suspect it is the modern equivalent of starting with the weather.

Start with some thing happening*, with characters, with some voice. Show me, from the off, why I should read this story instead of all the others clamoring for my attention.


*This need not include explosions. But there should be something in the opener to hook me in, make me ask questions, wonder about the answers, make me read on to find out. A cold description of who is sat where, followed by exposition regarding description, does not do it for me.(and I emphasise the for me, because it may for someone else)

 

[tinkerdan]

Hi I Voyager,

Yes that limit is a bit of a problem but its not the problem here.

We switched things up a bit from the first piece but this camera thing is still stage direction and the play doesn't start until he says "I'm not, I'm done with it." and if that's not what this is about then we missed the mark at least for me.

The camera still dominates the piece and unless it's a character in the story I'm not all that comfortable with it. If it is then it needs to find a voice and ,you know, I understand camera's are a little deficient in that area.

As for the techo-speak:
Charles Stross did something like this in the beginning of his Accelerando, but he actually gave the pages of jargon and techno-speak a voice and that voice was somewhat engaging even though the whole thing was annoying at times.

I didn't feel this engaging me at all. Sorry.

 

[Bowler1]

I can't speak for agents and the like but I can say that 1500 words is more than enough to get a good feel for someone's work. Granted, it's not perfect or possibly even fair, but then again, either is the world (blame the Mods, all except Judge, who is nice, but she still scares me!). Take time to review the comments and digest, and once done repost the next version of your opening. The help on here for new members is very good, and there are lots of very nice people that will make time for you.

The only thing I have really learned over the last few years is that learning to write well takes time, lots of painful time and effort. So there is no rush. Take stock, try again and share your writing with us when done.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I think there are a couple of questions here.

Firstly, why are you writing the story? Is it for it to be published, or is it for you to tell your story, the way you want to, and complete something for yourself? If the latter, work away, write it whatever way it appeals. If the former, things are more complicated.

I wanted, with my first book, to have an existentialist hero. Now, with the best will in the world, they're not the easiest thing to make exciting. He doesn't hanker for revenge as much as the reader does for him, to a certain extent. He thinks far too much. But I wanted it as a piece for publication, therefore I had to find a way to keep my intent in place, but to make the story around it (and the protagonist himself) interesting.

It's great to have good ideals for a book, but if you want others to read it, then it has to be framed within something interesting, a story with characters and events the reader wants to follow. Then you can put in as many layers of meaning, and nuances of language you want.

 

[chrispenycate]

Really, KMQ, they sent me a copy of the conditions (not the program). It was hilarious. Even putting my name down reduced very fractionally my hopes of convincing the American public; this after two rewrites to simplify it down for a potential readership who they estimated had only just transcended the 'Run, spot, run' level of reading (from citizens of the United States I have met, plus those with whom I have corresponded on here, I would suggest that, despite determination, the American educational system has not succeeded in ignorising its pupils to this point – yet). I wish I still had that computer, to show you. But I suspect that it was used more to restrain me, personally, than as a general guideline; I do tend to a certain excess.

Yes, looking at the technical side

Those rods ferry self-propelled step-motors which shudder smoothly, if not soundlessly for as little as a half-millimetre in one direction or another.

, there is obviously a typo here. Half a mm? Your ordinary ink jet gives you 300dpi, which is a twelfth of a millimetre. Half a micrometre (µm) perhaps? I'm happy to accept that stepper motors could be built to this precision using fullerene conductors and thermoplastic insulation (though I would like an extra head for semiconductors ), but, sort of a philosophical question here, could it be printed by a head with only that precision? (Just as you could never print anything as big as the printer itself, but could print a kit which could be assembled. So, for a true von Neumann machine, you would have to print an assembly robot, no more complex than the machines that have been putting components into printed circuit boards since the nineteen sixties, but needs plugging in. And it wouldn't be able to extract its raw materials from the environment, either, but constrained to industrially manufactured stocks. No a fabricator, a universal pantograph, still dependent on nasty squishy humans to get its job done).

“you’ve got a million dollar idea with infinite market potential.

Oh, a billion dollar, surely; a million won't get you anything nowadays (not that I'd refuse if someone offered me one). But specialised, good for certain tasks, not a revolution in manufacture.

(blame the Mods, all except Judge, who is nice, but she still scares me!)

What ingratitude! After all those comma splice comments.

 

[Kissmequick]

Really, KMQ, they sent me a copy of the conditions (not the program). It was hilarious.

Wow! I've never heard of that at any reputable pub....

 

[JoanDrake]

I rather liked it but it was a little technical. The hook at the end is very good as I REALLY want to see what wonder/horror he's just downloaded, but couldn't you have gotten to it a little sooner?

You catch the flavor of a science convention very well, IMO, but then I've never been to one, but do know how others operate.

I don't know if I'm supposed to but I don't like Tiedermann, reminds me of Ender. I didn't like him either