Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Writing’

Kurt R.A. GiambastianiI finished the rewrite of “Cast in Stone,” today. It’s longer and, in my opinion, much improved. I’m going to give it another read-through before posting it, but I’m pretty happy with it.

As a reminder, I’m giving away the original story, the hand-written rewrite, and now I’m adding the marked-up printout that I created during this rewrite process. To enter this contest, go to the original contest post and leave a comment (full rules after the jump).

Rewrites are always instructive, if you approach it with the right attitude. Problems I thought were insurmountable (albeit 20 years ago) I now find correctable.

  • The “new character halfway through the story” issue was solved by bringing all three characters into the first scene.
  • The “too-short scene near the end” issue was fixed by combining it with the following scene.
  • The “too many POVs” issue I addressed by pulling the entire story up into full omniscient viewpoint.

But why rewrite the whole story, every word of it? Well, my style has changed a lot in 20 years, and I want it to sound like me, now, and not me, then.

Keep your eyes peeled.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Kurt R.A. GiambastianiTonight, as I was working on the rewrite of “Cast in Stone,” I thought it might be a lark to offer up my handwritten MS to anyone who wants it.

Full disclosure: If no one puts in for it, I’ll pout a wee bit.

And so…

If you want to receive in the post a printout of the original version of “Cast in Stone” (with colorized markup, as posted here on this blog) accompanied by my handwritten rewrite (I’m rewriting the entire story, not just sections, on Rhodia paper with a St Dupont pen using Noodler’s Baystate Blue ink), all you have to do is this: (more…)

Read Full Post »

Kurt R.A. GiambastianiI know you’re all anxiously awaiting the “big reveal” on my full rewrite of “Cast in Stone”–he said, his words dripping with sarcasm–but that’s still a couple of days away. Meanwhile, I’m still working on the analysis task I set for myself.

If you’ll recall, as preparation for my next book, I’ve been analyzing the writing of some writers whose style I’d like to emulate. I’ve started with Alice Hoffman’s Blackbird House, a set of vignettes describing centuries of life around a single location. My goal was to understand how she is able, with extremely simple language, to create the feeling of lyricism and the mystical atmosphere that imbue so much of her work.

Let me warn you, though, before you take on a task like this. Just as most sausage-lovers don’t like to see sausage being made, doing a breakdown/ analysis/ desconstruction of a favorite author’s work can take some of the magic out of the reading experience. Suddenly, you’ll see the elements on every page, in every paragraph, and it may take some time before you can stop seeing those elements (if at all).

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Kurt R.A. Giambastiani

This edit only addresses the items highlighted in the original, and while I feel it is an improved version, there are still other problems–some of those “macro” level problems of the type I mentioned way back when I started this series. Problems like, say what? a new character halfway through a short story? Problems like, it’s just a bit dry and non-descript in places; too bland and banal. Problems like, it’s got a little too much sci-fi gimcrackery around the edges.

I’ll address these issues in a final rewrite, but for now, feel free to read and compare this to the original version.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Kurt R.A. Giambastiani

Here is the original version of “Cast in Stone,” a trunk story I wrote about 20 years ago (Good lord, has it been that long?) If you missed the history of this piece, go read the Preamble to this edit-fest.

And to remind you of the color codes for each error type:

  • Telling, not showing
  • Clunky phrasing/naming names
  • Exposition
  • Bad metaphors/similes/adjectives
  • Wiggle words
  • Echoes

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Kurt R.A. GiambastianiMy story, “Cast in Stone,” was written in the early ’90s, and is probably the third or fourth story I ever wrote. I wrote it for a themed anthology about “deaders,” brain-dead humans who were animated via software to become servants and workers. The anthology accepted the story, but the money fell through and it was never published.

I then submitted the story to OMNI, back when OMNI was (a) a real magazine and (b) still publishing fiction under the incomparable editorial hand of Ellen Datlow. One of Ms. Datlow’s assistant editors, Robert K.J. Killheffer, read the story, and liked it enough to take the extraordinary step of leading me through several rewrites. (I have to say, after boiler-plate/check-list rejection letters, it was a thrill to get a letter for a rewrite!) He provided me with guidance each time through, suggesting changes in everything from the title (original title: “Statuesque Revisions”…ick) to structure and style.

We went through about four iterations, if memory serves, with Rob sending me up two pages or so of typewritten comments, and me improving the story each time. In the end, the story was still rejected, but this all tells you how much work went into the version I present to you here.

And even with all that editing, all that mentorship, it still has so many problems that I wince to read parts of it.

So, what I will be presenting here is “Cast in Stone,” in its original, post-OMNI form. I have changed not a word, but I have highlighted the major errors and issues of the type I’ve talked about in this series of posts. I’ve given each a color code as follows:

  • Telling, not showing
  • Clunky phrasing/naming names
  • Exposition
  • Bad metaphors/similes/adjectives
  • Wiggle words
  • Echoes

Then, I’ll present a rewritten version where I’ll fix them and (possibly) some of the larger, structural problems the story has.

Ready?

 

Read Full Post »

Stack of BooksThis is the last specific topic I’m going to post in this series on common mistakes that plague new/untrained writers. But, I’ve decided that the final post is gong to be an experiment. I’m going to take an old trunk story and post it here, warts and all, highlighting the errors I’ve been complaining about here. Then I’m going to edit it, rewriting it to see how much better it might be. Then, you can be the judge of whether or not my advice given here is of any value.

But that’s later. For today, I’ll lay out my last gripes about unpolished writing: repetition, assonance, and alliteration. Like last time, these are hard to find in editing, and not something I can spot by scanning a work. But I find that if I keep my “ear” open as I read, I’ll hear them.

By “repetition,” I mean the re-use of a specific word in close proximity. Naturally, I have to re-use words, but most words don’t cause a problem because they’re so common. We’re accustomed to their being repeated over and over within a paragraph or even within a sentence. It’s the unusual words that, when repeated, cause a problem, and the more unusual the word, the more it sticks in the reader’s mind. Editors I’ve worked with call this an “echo,” and I’ve had “echoes” called out chapters away from each other.

Example: If I use the word “diaphanous” in Chapter 1, and then again in Chapter 2, you’ll remember it. You’ll probably remember it if I use it in Chapter 10. If I use the words “bifurcate” or “spavined” more than once in the entire book, you’ll remember it. But even common words, when used in close juxtaposition, can create a problem of “echoes.” (more…)

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »