Inspired by the beta-volunteering post

[noblesentiments.livejournal.com]

..... even before the beta volunteering post was made I've often wondered about story writing and what it is to beta a story. For example, when reading a story which just hasn't come to life or where the characters are completely flat and I can't see them and so don't much care about them, then how would a beta go about advising the writer and trying to remedy the problem? It's one thing to advise on spelling, past participles, sentence construction etc. but quite another to bring a story to life......which then led me to think about which stories I *have* read where I feel the writer *has* managed to do this and has almost succeeded in creating a 3D effect - multidimensional characters and scenes where the power of the writing is such that I, the reader, actually feel I'm there, with the characters, soaking up the atmosphere and breathing the same air. For me, one of the best examples of what I mean is the following scene from Sebastian's Et in italia ego:

Doyle propped his elbows on the railings and gazed out. His skin had turned an easy brown and his teeth looked very white; he looked fit and strong and healthy. His shirt, shortsleeved white aertex, was damp here and there; the hairs on his honey-coloured forearms were stiffly raised, trying in vain to bring his body heat down. There was nobody about; on impulse Bodie ducked his head and laid his cheek there for a moment on Doyle’s arm, breathing in the warm scent of the other man’s body, always a familiar background to a life where he was often confined in small spaces with Ray Doyle: sweat and soap and sometimes, but not today, gunsmoke. Here in Italy he and Doyle were just men, just tourists: but they had something very special about them today: they had kissed in the night and made each other come, and nobody in the world knew it, a secret they would never share with another living soul.

.....whenever I read this passage I come away feeling that there were three people leaning over the railing that day: me - the voyeur - Bodie and Doyle......but I *still* don't know exactly what it is that is present in that scene which is so affecting, which makes me feel that the whole thing - characters, scenery etc - is completely alive, electric and vibrant. So, if anyone else reading this post feels the same way about that particularly scene I wonder how you would help me analyse *why* it works so well? I'd love to know otherwise I'll only ever be able to offer blood, sweat and tears as a beta.

Comments

[sc-fossil.livejournal.com]

When I read the passage, I was struck that no amount of editing would make one whit of difference with somebody this talented. It would be there regardless of say, misspellings or errant commas. An editor might make it a bit more cleaner in those terms, but I have the feeling that the writer's innate talent would still shine through in spite of being unpolished (which this certainly isn't!).

But somebody, say like me, who isn't a strong writer, definitely benefits from a competent editor, who can at least help make a story readable. But there is no way, in a thousand years, I'd ever be able to even touch being this wonderful. Just that single paragraph was a joy to read.

[noblesentiments.livejournal.com]

But somebody, say like me, who isn't a strong writer, definitely benefits from a competent editor, who can at least help make a story readable. But there is no way, in a thousand years, I'd ever be able to even touch being this wonderful. Just that single paragraph was a joy to read.

That's an interesting point because I don't think Sebastian was always that good - her stories evolved more than most - and probably derived a lot of benefit from a good editor and lots of practice.

Thanks for that.

[jgraeme2007.livejournal.com]

I've done quite a bit of manuscript evaluation over the years -- it's a little different for fan fiction, I'm guessing. Beta-ing (is there such a word?) the Pros will likely have more to do with British-isms and canon stuff, grammar, etc. A lot of it will be subjective, some of it will not.

Even when evaluating manuscripts, some of it becomes subjective, which the editor/evaluator has to guard against. I have to remind myself not to impose my style on other writers; I have a distinct "voice." It's not to everyone's taste.

As sc__fossil points out, the sample you chose is already beautifully written. If you want to analyze it, look at the quality of detail -- sensory detail. This is what brings a scene to life. Most amateur writers either overdo the detail (it's quality, not quantity) or they select meaningless detail (stage business filler that adds nothing to our understanding of the scene or characters).

The choice of language is vivid and precise and reasonably spare.

A scene and a mood are created through use of language and sensory detail.

To do this requires skill -- which can be learned -- and talent -- which cannot. Or at least, I define talent as an eye or knack, and I believe we are all born with certain apptitudes. Like having perfect pitch or being tone deaf.

And, contrary to popular belief, loving something with all your heart, doesn't guarantee that you will be good at it -- although passion is certainly useful in learning.

You can't really teach a sense of humor or imagnation, but you can instruct aspiring writers on not accepting the first image that occurs, and you can generally teach them to write stronger dialog by forcing them to prune.

Anyone can improve his or her writing; it's just that some people have a gift and most don't. Those who aren't gifted, have to work harder.

It's much easier to analyze a badly written piece -- and, oddly enough, that's the very post I'm working on for my own LJ.

Many people can identify that something is awkward or doesn't work, but to effectively evaluate a manuscript you must be able to analyze why it doesn't work or is wrong, and then identify how to fix it in practical terms. That takes knowledge and experience.

On the other hand, there's a lot to be said for a gut reaction to a work, and if you can put that gut reaction into words, that can be very helpful to a writer.

[noblesentiments.livejournal.com]

Ah, sensory detail, yes, that's helpful and I like the idea of precise and spare language - all my favourite writers seem to employ that talent.

A scene and a mood are created through use of language and sensory detail

Scene, mood and atmosphere are all ingredients which seem to be very important in my favourite writers who, I think, also happen to be good writers. Sebastian and Helen Raven of the older, more classic pros writing school and people like byslantedlight of the more recent intake are masters at creating atmosphere and mood - surely things which can help bring characters and scenes to life.

On the other hand, there's a lot to be said for a gut reaction to a work, and if you can put that gut reaction into words, that can be very helpful to a writer.

Another good point and it's a gut reaction which I have to people like Sebastian - I *know* they write well, but I can't analyse or deconstruct *why* they do - what it is about their writing which makes them so different to other, more inferior writers. It's like good painting: I know it when I see it.

[blkandwhtcat.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, being able to bring the characters and scene to life in the mind of the reader, or to write natural, flowing dialogue, or to write a believable sex scene, are not things that (IMO) a beta can help with. Those are things that are solely within the province of the author, and some have that talent, while others do not. As you point out, it has nothing to do with grammar and spelling. A person can be an excellent technical writer, and yet fall flat when it comes to creative writing.

I am often struck by how much I enjoy a particular writer's charcterization of Bodie and Doyle. Just to give an example, I really enjoy the way Sebastian writes Doyle, because she always captures the feline grace and overt, in-your-face sensuality that makes Doyle so attractive. He's an unusual looking man, not classically handsome, and definitely NOT "ethereal," delicate and feminine, as many writers seem to want to describe him. I think Sebastian always captures Doyle's intense sex appeal, and makes him incredibly attractive without glossing over the fey, slightly odd, occasionally rough looking face of the character. My favorite story of hers is Hyperion to a Satyr, in large part because of how she writes Doyle.

[noblesentiments.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, being able to bring the characters and scene to life in the mind of the reader, or to write natural, flowing dialogue, or to write a believable sex scene, are not things that (IMO)

I hope you're wrong and it's depressing if you're right! Surely a good editor can at least help with the flow of dialogue? And, as I said above, even a good writer such as Sebastian improved with practice i.e. I don't think the writing in her very early stories was nearly as good as her later work.

Very interesting, though. Thanks.

[blkandwhtcat.livejournal.com]

Well, maybe I'm projecting my own experience. I studied English lit in college, excelled in legal writing in law school, and have been a voracious reader since childhood (my parents severely limited our access to TV). I am very good at analytical writing, and never made below an A on any paper I submitted while an undergraduate or in law school. However, I am not a creative writer. On those occasions I've tried (never tried fanfic, just poetry and short stories), I failed. I just don't have the talent to bring characters and scenes to life. If mere familiarity with and appreciation of great writing, plus a solid grasp of grammar and a decent vocabulary, could make someone a good creative writer, then I should be able to write. However, it's that creative aspect - the ability to choose words and maniuplate language to create a vivid image in the mind of the reader - that I just don't have. Wish I did, but I don't. I suppose that because I know I can't do it, I assumed that no one can. (and you know what they say about assumptions . . .!)

Re Sebastian, I not sure as to when she wrote what, but there are definitely some stories in which I think her characterizations are way off. For example, her four part story (Adagio?) presents a Bodie who is inexplicably terrified to fuck Doyle, and who falls sobbing at Doyle's feet when he thinks he's screwed up the relationship. I can't buy a Bodie who would do that. Totally out of character, IMO. And yet her Hyperion to a Satyr is one of my top Pros stories, and many of her others are quite good as well. I also really like M. Fae Glasgow stories, sometimes more for her characterization, descriptions, and great use of language than for the actual stories, which can be pretty damned depressing!

BTW, where are you guys getting the great Pros icons? I need some!

[noblesentiments.livejournal.com]

However, it's that creative aspect - the ability to choose words and maniuplate language to create a vivid image in the mind of the reader - that I just don't have. Wish I did, but I don't. I suppose that because I know I can't do it, I assumed that no one can. (and you know what they say about assumptions . . .!)

I think I'd agree with you, but I was thinking more about your comment on being able to writing natural, flowing dialogue which originally I had thought was something you could improve on with practice or expert help. But, on reflection, I think I was thinking more about good, flowing writing per se, and not dialogue which *is* probably harder to get right. But good flowing writing, whether it's in a non-literary, academic subject like history or philosophy, or a subject like creative writing, I would have thought it's possible to improve on....

[faramir-boromir.livejournal.com]

Everything there is something we've seen before. That is, we know what elbows, skin, shirts, balconies, and gunsmoke all are--there's nothing odd or exotic to be explained. But having them there frames the story and draw us in, allowing us a space to stand that's familiar.

This leaves the author room to work on what we **haven't** seen before, namely, how Doyle is standing (visualized easily), how Bodie sees him, smells him, responds to him (a fantastic progression, from the most obvious of the five senses to the least).

We're then taken to a place only an omniscient narrator can go: back into the past one evening, the night they've made love and nobody in the world knew it, a secret they would never share with another living soul. This sense of being in on the secret, the forbidden love, in a vacation hideaway--it's intoxicating. There's your voyeurism!

We see, as well, a vulnerable Bodie doing something he would never do: nuzzling Doyle's arm. This is something only lovers would ever do. It's intimate, and private. Again, the voyeur might witness it, but only if Bodie allowed it.

The familiar is really familiar.
The unfamiliar is described in fantastic sensory detail.
The unknowable gives the reader insights forbidden to all others.
The vulnerability of a previously invulnerable character makes the scene jump out and stick in the momory.

[noblesentiments.livejournal.com]

Really good analysis here, thank you! I'm wondering if it could be applied to other realistic scenes, almost like a kind of template? e.g. another favourite scene from B & D Beside the Sea (mind you, once it's deconstructed the reasons which bring it to life are pretty similar to the other example: voyeurism etc. even the arms are there!)

It was irresistible. Zeus himself, who had succumbed to the charms of the young Ganymede, would certainly have swept off this sleeping Doyle without a passing thought; and Bodie was only too mortal.
He let his lips brush over the warm scented skin of Doyle's arm, tracing gently over the soft downy hair; and then his mouth parted and he let his tongue glide there, playing over a centimetre of salty silken skin.
The taste of him filled Bodie's senses; heart, body and soul cried out for more. No chance. He'd risked too much already. Heart pounding, he pulled away a little, and braced his arms to push himself up

He knew Doyle was awake the instant he moved.

[faramir-boromir.livejournal.com]

Linking their story to the story of other lovers who would not be thwarted (carefully chosen, a story in which the man watches before he pounces, as Bodie is about to do) is a great leaping off point. It's both familiar and unfamiliar--we might remember the myth, if reminded, yet not so much that it detracts from the story of B&D. Keeping the spotlight on the center pair is always important.

Again, the sensory inputs are important, specific but not so much that the imagination can't come into play.

Great alliteration: salty silken skin. Love that.

And then, the surprise, the hook of the fish on the line: He knew Doyle was awake the instant he moved. It reminds of how heightened Bodie's awareness is, that he has such a close reading of Doyle's body language, and it forces the reader to keep reading--what will Doyle do, now that he knows Bodie has licked him.

Oh, and nice verb choices, subtle, suiting the moment: brushing, tracing, parting, gliding, playing, tasting.

[noblesentiments.livejournal.com]

You've done this before! (she observes suspiciously).

Honestly, if it was possible to make those scenes come to life even more than they do, then I think you've managed it for me with the way you bring out *why* and *what* it is I love about the writing.

Allowing our imagination some space is an excellent point and, incidentally, I think it's a skill which Helen Raven uses to great effect in her work, often leaving sentences hanging in the air and me, rushing on to the next bit in case just in case I miss something.

And then, the surprise, the hook of the fish on the line: He knew Doyle was awake the instant he moved. It reminds of how heightened Bodie's awareness is, that he has such a close reading of Doyle's body language, and it forces the reader to keep reading--what will Doyle do, now that he knows Bodie has licked him.

I'd never thought about the scene in this way before and again, it hinges upon our senses, the reader's sense and Bodie's in that we're both waiting with bated breath for the next step to be taken. Such wonderful writing.

And yes, the choice of verbs helps to lock us into their own secret, gentle, erotic world where, even though they're on a busy beach and surrounded by lots of people, it's just the two of them and they're totally immersed in each other.

Again, thanks.

[callistosh65.livejournal.com]

Very interesting post and comments. What struck me most of all when I read the paragraph you quote here is something that others have already commented on, and that it is the way it appeals to our senses as a reader. I'm there, seeing, smelling, almost tasting Italy and Doyle's skin in that moment. It's vivid, and as jgraeme2007 points out The choice of language is vivid and precise and reasonably spare. Sebastian does here what the great (fic) writers do, and that is she gives us the sensory detail we need to make it vivid, without going into overkill. Easy to say, maybe, damn hard to do well!
I agree that certain mechanics, and an awareness of story-telling skills can be learned, but there is also a passion for it, an instinct that guides the best storytellers, which is surely immeasurable.

[noblesentiments.livejournal.com]

Easy to say, maybe, damn hard to do well!

But the first step has been taken! I'm beginning to recognise what it is in a scene which makes it come alive and that makes me very happy.

Thanks.

[callistosh65.livejournal.com]

I hope you don't mind me adding another quote, but I have always loved this one from this story, that moment when we see how deep and fast Bodie is falling..

That was the end of Bodie's sightseeing: to this day he could tell you nothing about the elegant little town of AnaCapri and the beautiful white villa of Axel Munthe, save that the heat of the sun beat down on him and his head swam with the wine they had with an untasted lunch, and desire for Doyle intoxicated him still more than that; so that every sense in him urged him on to hunt him, kiss him, force him if he had to.

And it's all one sentence, too.

[noblesentiments.livejournal.com]

I love you adding more quotes, thank you!

And the passage you quote is one of my all time favourite - the last two lines make *my* head swim, so thanks very much for reminding me of this part:

and his head swam with the wine they had with an untasted lunch, and desire for Doyle intoxicated him still more than that; so that every sense in him urged him on to hunt him, kiss him, force him if he had to.

Hunting him, forcing him mama!

[onlymystars.livejournal.com]

No question a beta can make a story better, but there is no substitute for talent. Unless the beta intends to rewrite the story (rumor has it that Stephen King's editors do this), a flat story will remain a flat story.

Sebastian did get better over time - I think Et in italia ego is her best. However even the early Adagio trilogy shows that her writing was above the average fanfic writer. I believe this is due to natural talent.

Of course now I need to read it again...

[noblesentiments.livejournal.com]

Welcome to the discussion!

Unless the beta intends to rewrite the story (rumor has it that Stephen King's editors do this), a flat story will remain a flat story.

That does seem to be the consensus here....though I can't help feeling that there's always hope and that by reading a lot, expert help, etc., aspiring writers can gather new ideas and approaches on how to do things better and, with more practice, maybe improve their work.

Sebastian did get better over time - I think Et in italia ego is her best. However even the early Adagio trilogy shows that her writing was above the average fanfic writer. I believe this is due to natural talent.

I think you're right and that she was always better than the average writer. Natural talent is a funny thing, though....lots of people with money seem to do better than people without money and manage to succeed in all sorts of activities, and this implies to me that they've become good at what they do not only because of a certain amount of talent, but because they're privileged and received better tuition etc. Arguably....

Thanks for that!