Comments on: I expose myself

By: Nicky

Nicky — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:27:57 +0000

Justine, thank you. It is wonderful to see. Regardless of whether it’s good, bad, indifferent etc. I find it easier to imagine all other art forms (like singing/music/good acting for example) requiring the equivalent of rewrites. In writing it is so much harder to see the process. I always liken a ‘book’ as a snapshot of a work – like one night’s performance. Except a book is caught for all time (unless the author does a ‘director’s cut’ edition). (Singers have to live with CD’s).

By: David Moles

David Moles — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:39:12 +0000

When they wouldn't let you call it Magic! Magic! Magic! Oi! Oi! Oi! you should have plumped for Magic or Whinging.

By: Allen

Allen — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 01:15:07 +0000

this blog is so inspirational ;_;

By: PixelFish

PixelFish — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 01:08:25 +0000

The pubbed version is so much better.

Thanks for posting that. I’m slogging through a draft revision, and hating my first draft for the messed-up, flawed work that it is—poor draft! I made it that way. Anyway, this makes me less wibbly over the polishing and refinement process.

By: Nicole

Nicole — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:29:57 +0000

I know in some ways it is obvious, but it was really useful to see that kind of “stuff happens, getting the ideas across” become well worded and pretty.

It makes me feel better about ‘just writing’ in between calls at work, with the intention of making it flow nicely later.

By: Salokin

Salokin — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 22:45:50 +0000

*monotone* These are not the droid we’re looking for.

By: gwenda

gwenda — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 22:28:10 +0000

Word, chica. I find the contrast very comforting and familiar.

By: Delia

Delia — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:44:05 +0000

Thank you so much for posting that. I’m in the throes of Volume the Second, and it stinks to high heaven. I haven’t got the voice, I haven’t got the pacing. But I will. And you’ve just reminded me of that.

By: Little Willow

Little Willow — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:41:40 +0000

I think Reason’s story has only benefitted from her first person POV. Cheers.

By: Ben Payne

Ben Payne — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:16:49 +0000

I actually like the original version. I’d keep reading.

The second version’s more mind-catchy though…

By: Meghan

Meghan — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:34:41 +0000

Wow, what a difference. I mean, the first one is totally, you know, fine, but that’s almost part of what’s cool about it — the switch from “acceptable” to “good.” I hate when things turn out “acceptable” when I was going for “good” so this makes me feel better!

By: Justine

Justine — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:49:26 +0000

Catherine Morris: Thank you! I’m so pleased my humiliation is serving it’s purpose!

Rebecca: And that was another mistake. No tension! No conflict! Esmeralda became much more interesting in the final version.

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:43:08 +0000

yeah, i know, but i didn’t think it was totally devoid of singing. i read a couple of chapters already. i was a bit perturbed about how well reason was getting on with esmeralda at first.

By: Catherine Morris

Catherine Morris — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:38:54 +0000

I love it. I’m so glad you posted those. What a good mini-lesson! Thanks!

And congrats on all the recent and upcoming releases. Very exciting.

By: Justine

Justine — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:10:11 +0000

Marrije: thanks for posting that, it convinces me that rewrites are good.

Hell, yes! My whole point was not just to humiliate myself, but to show how much work goes into a final draft.

Rebecca: It’s very bad to have an opening chapter that doesn’t sing. Why would anyone keep reading?

Anonymous: It is boring. Nothing really happens. She just whinges a lot. That’s one of the many reasons I rewrote it.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:05:50 +0000

its boring! i didnt know you could wirte boring!

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:37:34 +0000

oooooh, cool! as soon as i am not at work, i shall read more. it really is very different, but not as bad as you make it sound.

By: marrije

marrije — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:21:56 +0000

maaaate! that improved a lot (though like sherwood I would have kept reading the first bit, too, I expect). it's also interesting that reason sounds much older in the second version. thanks for posting that, it convinces me that rewrites are good.

By: Justine

Justine — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:17:42 +0000

Sherwood: It’s amazing how flat that first version is, isn’t it? Nice to hear there was something that kept you reading . . .

Maureen: One of the motivations for switching Reason’s pov to first person rather than third was the flatness of the early version. Once I switched to first Reason came alive for me. And when I’d done that I got curious about what Tom was like. So I jumped into his head and voila! the chapter where he’s introduced became much more vibrant too.

It never ceases to amaze me how very different a book is if you switch pov or what person it’s written in.

What’s your reason for wanting to switch from third?

By: maureen

maureen — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:11:51 +0000

The final version of the book starts with Reason’s POV, and then shifts throughout the story. When did you make the change? (I ask as someone who just wrote an entire 1st draft in 3rd, but am thinking about altering that.)

By: Sherwood Smith

Sherwood Smith — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:10:13 +0000

It’s so interesting to see the two. The kernal of the story is there; though that first version is not dynamic, I would keep reading. In other words, the talent—the diamond—is there: Missing her mom is a potential facet catching my eye; a girl named Reason is another. But the polished version coruscates from the very first sentence.