My Recent Comments

Hey Papaya, what a fantastic story! Love it!

You know, Myth Busters is one of our favourite shows but yes, we know everything is possible. My dh is gonna love your story, too.

Thank you so much for de-lurking and hopefully we'll you'll come back often.

Wow this thread has been so quiet I figure I'll start something.

I was watching, The Good, The Bad and The Ugly last night on Game TV's gunslinger's weekend and the last scene is where...

SPOILER ALERT

...Clint East uses his 'distance rifle' to shoot the rope effectively cutting it in two. Remember that scene?

Well just last week, we were watching Myth Busters where they proved it was impossible - at any distance - to cut a rope using one bullet.

But even knowing that didn't take away from my enjoyment of the scene.

The reason this movie is a classic is partially due to its length. But if they took out all the shots that make this a 'spaghetti western', it wouldn't have the same effect. You'd be left with just another western.

I love watching these classics. As a writer, the facial shots are priceless. For example, in the movie last night, one scene was where the 3 gunfighters stood in a triangle, watching each other to see who would draw first. You could see the sweat bead on their brows, biting their lip, etc. Then each time the camera tightened (oops, I'm a film extra remember) moved in closer, the emotion would increase. The more emotion, the faster the camera flicked between the men. If only I could press a button on my TV and have a printout on what they did. IE tell me instead of just show me.

This is even more extraordinary when you realize that most films are made using only 1 camera at a time.

(I think some big budget action movies use up to 7.)

I don't know how many they actually used for this one, but usually, the camera would first go to maybe Clint and he would go through his emotions, then it would go to Lee Van Cleft and after it would go to Eli Walach. It's up to the editor to piece it all together. Stupendous!

Anyway, my point is that I think these spaghetti westerns are some of the best places to research emotion. 

Thank you Dee, I appreciate it.

 So is every Friday Family Day?

(or was it Sat?  )

Dee, thanks for the info on the tag line - it's just what I wanted to hear.

On another note, on the first page of this thread, you said:

...The caveat becomes, of course, not to let the punctuation do the writing for you. Many folks can get carried away with exclaimation points to show excitement, intensity, rage, happiness. The truth is, an exclaimation point can't do that. It can only show how loud a character is...and how weak the writing might be.

I have to admit, I always used the ex mark as a sign of excitement, although I do listen to my CP's when they say I use too many and try to tone it down.

But the ex mark is perfect for showing excitement. Think about the effect this can have when you're trying to tighten your work!

Oops.

I agree that there are times when passive writing is the right thing to write but I'm wondering what the professionals think when it's in tag lines and such.

I've been throwing words around, and this line came up:

Love, the way it was meant to be...

Now, I really like that b/c it can have all kinds of meanings incl'g working well w/my inspy books.

But, it's passive writing. And no, I haven't googled it yet to see if anyone else is using it. I'd like to know what you think.

Yes, Lisa - I'll second that.   

 In case you're wondering, I'm not crying b/c you're on the boards but b/c I won't be in SF.

I will be in Minn, however.

And welcome.

Hope, the entries for this challenge should be posted on Thurs Jul 24th or Fri Jul 25th.

I know Delightful Dee likes us to refer everyone to the links at the top of this page if they want info, but I have a typo in that version that I'm a mite embarrassed about.

I've changed it on my post on the thread, though, hint, hint.

Hey Dee, I'm up for anything that will improve my writing.

Hope - well hello there, stranger, it's nice to see you here. It'll be nice to read something of yours, again.

Hey Vince - thanks for posting your POV points. I know that some people would prefer comments/critiques about their writing in private. I, on the other hand, went through boot camp and a military history before human rights came in - that is to say, I developed a thick skin from being yelled at for everything from my boots not shined enough to not flaunting my non-existant chest (at the time).  

I'm 50 yrs old and finally getting serious about my writing. I haven't got time to pussyfoot around. And, I'm confident enough to accept criticism when it's given and chuck it if I don't like it.  

Now, about 'Kid in a Gravel Pit':

you know, it never crossed my mind that someone might not know the gender of my character.  I just did what I do when I'm acting in the industry - I got into my character and tried to talk and act like him.

Dee said, Truthfully, I didn't question for a second the Main was male. The tones came across that way. LOL, this is going to sound sexist, but the character had a very direct tone, a sense of "I know what this dumb boy would do..." and, well...he worked a quarry. Not that women can't, but I don't hear a lot about women who do. He simply felt like a guy, especially in his approach to the kid.

Dee and Hope thank you - that is exactly what I was trying to portray. I wonder if the problem lies in the fact Vince, being a guy, knows how guys think whereas we just think we do.

Vince, you said:

"Because of comments he'd made in the last few days, it was suspected he went exploring in a nearby abandoned gravel pit."

REVISION

"I thought the kid might have gone exploring in the nearby abandoned gravel pit because of comments he made the other day.

Your revision changes the story. The main character (main) had never talked to the kid. But he'd rec'd a phone call that the kid was missing and he'd been told that the kid had made comments about the gravel pit.

You said:

Due to a high water table, every time I started working the heavy machinery needed to extract the gravel, the vibrations caused avalanches in the thirty foot walls.

 REVISION

Every time I started working the heavy machinery to extract the gravel, the vibrations caused avalanches. The thirty foot walls had been undermined by the high water table.

I don't understand how a 30 ft wall can be undermined by high water table. Have you ever been a house that has a high water table? A train going past the house a quarter mile away will make everything shake and rattle. Every picture will be tilted. I know. I lived in such a house. The main walked down to the floor of the pit and looked up at the walls. There was no water in the walls. It was all underneath. Or at least in my story it was.

I guess I still have a lot to learn b/c the next 2 examples just seem to be tightening of the sentences as opposed to POV problem.

Maybe someone else can explain it to me?