#how to structure a book

[feelingthedisaster]

The King's Men's plot structure is genius.

TKM has been critized a lot for not following the conventional plot structure, because it doesnt end inmediatly at the resolution of the climax, like they taught us in class. But it actually has a reason behind it and it think that is what makes AFTG unique and Nora Sakavic an amazing writer. I'll explain.

So, we all know AFTG has a lot of chess metaphors, however i think it doesnt contain the metaphors, it is the metaphor. Each character represents a piece of the board (Riko king, Kevin queen, Neil pawn, Andrew knight, etc) and exy is the chess, but but but, a chess game not only involves the pieces, the game cannot exist without someone playing, the chess masters (which would be Kengo, Ichiriu, Nathan and all the mafia stuff).

So, AFTG is divided into two plots happening at the same time: what happens on the chess board (exy season) and what happens outside it (the mafia mess).

Of couse, the climax has to be about the outside out, because who cares which one of pieces move in which way if the players are pointing guns at eachother under the board? The guns are more more important. So who cares? The pieces on the board care, the ones that are being played with. And who is the narrator? The character that represents the pawn, the less important figure of the entire room.

Yeah, the 'outside of the board' plot is over half way into the book, but it doesnt matter because that happens outside the board, the chess game has not ended yet. The pawn cannot go back to rest in the box until the game is over, until the king dies. The book cannot be over until the chess game our protagonist is a piece of ends. The books have to end with the king's (Riko) death and that is exactly what happens.

If this isnt excellent writing and one of the best examples of know the rules so you can break them, i dont what is.

[bookshelf-in-progress]

Now that I know more about writing, I'm upset at all the writing advice that urged new writers to find the one best way to write stories, when they should be telling us to play with writing techniques like toys.

Don't tell us to avoid certain points of view! Don't box us into the one currently popular prose style! Let us play and see what effects different techniques achieve, so we can learn the best ways to make use of them! Give us a whole ton of possibility instead of one cookie-cutter template!

[broadwayfangirl222]

Regarding your Gideon and Bill post... I have noticed that.

It's also interesting how also... Gideon and Bill also developed an irrational hatred to the other twin. To the point of going bonkers with Dipper and Stan. I mean...

When Dipper broke up with Gideon in the name of Mabel, he tried to murder him, he also mocks his insecurities and tries to demoralize him and when he realized Dipper had the Journal 3, he tought that Dipper tried to take him for a fool.

Bill only mentions Stan twice in the book, but the second time he mentions him, he's driven bonkers. After the letters. When the reader considers what the Pines told him, Bill thinks Stan is doing it again (Since he was the last one in talking with the reader.), similar to how Gideon tought Dipper got in the way and tried to turn Mabel against him. Bill thinks that Stan tried to get in the way and turned Ford against him, notice how both were unaware that they stopped liking them, but the second, the younger twin got in the way, the villains pinned all the blame on them and also... Bill much like Dipper never gives Stan a nickname save for demoralizing him.

Compare: "That inferior copy of Sixer" to, "You're nothing without your journal!"

Also compare: "It's him again!" to "He gave Journal 3 and he's taking Journal 1 back to California!", in which they scapegoat them for everything.

Funnily enough, Dipper and Stan think low about Gideon and Bill, almost like if they were "The jerk of the week" in both cases, even Dipper almost never talks about Gideon in the Journal.

Also... a key thing: Mabel got over Gideon at the end of "The Hand That Rocks The Mabel" and only shows annoyance towards him in later episodes, while Ford is revelated that while he puts a face in front of Bill, sadly he's still afraid of him and still thinks of him as invincible and took the help of his family to finally get over him and see him as a "pathethic needy stage kid".

What do you think?

Actually yeah...That's another parallel. Bill clearly holds more of a grudge to Stan specifically and Gideon targets Dipper. If you even check the this is not a website site and type in stan's name you see how pissed off Bill is at losing to Stan (idk if this is the right order but yeah...he's still salty to say the least XD)

(also just wanna point out, he says it's SIxer's plan but if you watch the episode Stan suggests the plan of Bill going into his mind)

Tbh It's also fitting that taking Bill/Gideon down for their family, specifically their siblings, when there seems to be no hope and Bill/Gideon seems to have won is this huge sign of growth for them too:

For Dipper him standing up to Gideon shows he can do amazing things without the journals and for Stan this shows he's not the screw up loser brother like everyone for most of his life has said. It's them both finding genuine value and purpose in this big act and taking down the bad guy

Also I know people have been pointing how the fearamid and what Bill's doing there is a "love cage" But I wanna point out Mabel's bubble kinda is too

Mabel comments how she's been hearing the same song over and over and over while she's been in there

[rookflower]

i know the knowledge is Not Secret and Pretty Damn Obvious but remembering the fact the wc writing team changed between oots and avos makes so much sense. like ohhh that's why mothwing is Like That now despite her previous characterisation being far less bitter and aggressive, along with other personality shifts or new directions for characters. that's why onestar's SE zeroed in on the darktail thing they came up with instead of older key scenes or points about his character that they may not remember as well if at all. that's why each arc is structured more episodically, repetitively, and self-contained now rather than having a lot of wee overarching character arcs and plot threads or messing much with the status quo. sometimes i wonder and then i remember the obvious answer. like. to both improvements and its degradations it explains a lot of writing switch ups between then and now doesnt it

[anghraine]

Speaking of the sidelining of Elizabeth's arc in pop culture/fandom takes on P&P, I do have a more uncharitable than usual speculation about it:

I don't think Elizabeth is written as an audience stand-in in a general sense. But the novel does give audiences a carefully-constructed space to fuck up in the same ways that Elizabeth does.

The audience participating in Elizabeth's flawed patterns of thinking and reacting and engaging with other people is not equivalent to Elizabeth doing it in-story. But I think the novel is more broadly concerned with these kinds of patterns in ways of thinking and approaching the world and especially approaching people in the world than with it as a purely in-story thing.

The novel's exact central turning point is Elizabeth's horrified epiphany about her faults following Darcy's letter. That moment is integral to Elizabeth's characterization, but much of what she says of herself and how she's been approaching the world could be fairly turned on much of the audience because of how the book is constructed. This construction is very clearly deliberate.

It's easy to feel like Elizabeth's flaws and mistakes are not really a big deal when it's stuff we ourselves do all the time and when the person doing them is as generally admirable and engaging as Elizabeth. But while she overstates things in the horror of the moment, the novel still insists that the flaws in her approach are a big deal, ethically. They are morally wrong. Elizabeth has to struggle to grow past those patterns and flaws, however imperfectly, and I think there's an implicit challenge in that: so should we.

tbh I suspect that challenge is really uncomfortable for some people to think about too hard, and that's part of the reason there's so much flailing to make the book centrally about anything else.

[trans-cuchulainn]

two questions to ask yourself when you start looking for pre-christian material in medieval literature:

1. when are these texts from

2. when did christianity come to this area

i can guarantee you in the vast majority of celtic-language sources (and others) the answer to 2. is several centuries before 1. and at that point you gotta ask yourself... how likely is it that these people would be writing about something that has not been a thing for them or anyone they know for, like, four hundred years (or, in many cases, eight or nine hundred years), especially given that most of the people doing that writing are not merely passively existing in a christian society but are, yunno, monks

there are exceptions! but there are way fewer exceptions than you think there are gonna be! and the exceptions are almost always extremely nebulous sub layers that can't be disentangled from the other layers (which are christian) with any certainty so are always somewhat speculative!

and most importantly those other layers are interesting too, but if you only ever treat them like dirt to dig through to get to something "real" underneath you're sure gonna be disappointed a lot of the time (and you're gonna miss a lot of cool shit that would be really exciting if this was an actual archaeological dig and not a metaphor)!!

[a-vague-yet-menacing-agency]

Old news but the fact that Cody was manager at hot topic is so unexplored in fandom. Like he wasn't some shithead employee he was the boss Entry level retail workers are so rarely promoted to manager nowadays, like, was Cody just that good at selling/managing the store? Also, managers make good money. Okay, haha, it's a hot topic, but store managers make like 70,000$ a year (CAD). They have health insurance. So Cody was actually doing pretty well. It's kinda weird to pretend he was on the same level as his friend with just a standard sales associate position, even if that friend was also full-time. Like the power and responsibility that Cody actually had is kind of impressive especially for 28.

AND then! To become a carnie! Like sick move and also Cody lost all his money anyway but the financial disparity! Was Murph probably thinking of like an assistant manager position which would make more sense with Cody's vibe? Probably. Is it funnier to imagine that Cody had to make sales reports to corporate and design store planograms? Absolutely.

Cody was management.

[mumblingsage]

I think I've recommended it in passing a few times, but writers seeking more craft books: I would run, not walk, in the direction of Matthew Salesses's Craft in the Real World. It's one of the most exciting books on writing that I've read in years (up there with Ron Carlson Writes a Story, Samuel Delaney's The Jewel-Hinged Jaw, Kim Addonizio's The Poet's Companion and June Casagrande's It Was the Best of Sentences, It Was the Worst of Sentences). I think it might be most helpful if you've already read some other books on craft--it's a sort of 201-level response to 101-level advice, and if you aren't familiar with the 101 advice you might miss some of the significance. But parts like the revision exercises definitely stand on their own.

Salesses re-evaluates and explores a lot of common writing ""rules"" with the understanding of how culturally contingent they are, and how this is a disservice to writers and readers from backgrounds and cultures outside the presumed "norm." At the same time, he offers modifications of the tools and new techniques/new ways of thinking of old techniques. I'm in the middle of his re-definitions of terms. For instance, Salesses recommends looking at Characterization as "What makes one character different from everyone else." Character + Story Arcs are "What changes or fails to change." Craft itself is "a set of expectations."

Lightbulb moments everywhere.

(While I'm sending out book advice: for less 'exciting' but super solid grounding in techniques designed for nonfiction but applicable broadly, try anything by Roy Peter Clark. Ursula K. Le Guin's Steering the Craft is short but rich; it's one of my first recommendations to writers just getting started on reading craft advice. In the Palm of Your Hand is another poetry workbook that has advice on vocabulary, detail, and narrative that applies well to fiction too. For anyone looking into self-publishing, it's out of print and parts are dated but if you can secure a used copy through your library or secondhand sales, Catherine Ryan Howard's Self-Printed: The Sane Person's Guide to Self-Publishing is hugely informative and amusingly written.)

[fictionadventurer]

"If the structure of your world ever evaporates, I will still be here."

I think The Q might contain one of the greatest declarations of friendship/love ever.

[aroaessidhe]

2024 reads / storygraph

Fallen Thorns

dark urban fantasy coming-of-age

follows a boy settling into university, when after a date (that he didn’t even want to go on) turns bad he’s made into a vampire

as he settles into his new existence and the local vampire community - while they try to find who’s been leaving bodies across the city - he discovers that there’s something different and darker within him

aroace neurodivergent MC

[welcometogrouchland]

IMPORTANT UPDATE FOR BATMAN AND ROBIN (2023) FANS!!!...he eat a burger [ID in alt]

(taken from Nicola Cizmesija's insta, who's on art for B&R issues #5 and #6)

[moregraceful]

Ekphrastic pantoum on Zack Gelof and Lawrence Butler for @timebegins-onopeningday. ID under the cut.

Image: a picture and a poem side by side on a cream background.

left: a picture of Lawrence Butler and Zack Gelof of the Oakland Athletics taken by Michael Zagaris. They are in the A's clubhouse. Butler is seated while Gelof leans over to show him something on his phone. Lawrence is smiling. Both men are only partially dressed, but Butler is wearing a black A's team shirt while Gelof is shirtless.

right: a poem in light brown front on a dark green background. poem text:

Zack & Law Poem There’s a game soon, but this can’t wait. “I need to show you something – listen to me, look!” Their shared joys, a few years into a life. How could he hold back? Why would he? Not now. I need to show you something. Listen to me. Look. They shoulder a future too difficult to name. How could he hold back, why would he, not now– they have to hold on until it ends. They shoulder a future too difficult to name; that won’t stop him from sharing everything. They have to hold on. Until it ends: “Come on, look. Be here with me. It’s good, right?” That won’t stop him from sharing everything. Their shared joys. A few years into a life. Come on. Look. Be here with me. It’s good. Right? There’s a game soon, but this can’t wait.

[onaperduamedee]

Let me get this straight, Aes Sedai:

- are outlawed in a couple of nations;

- are hunted by militias that are disliked but still tolerated by the general population;

- cannot attack or conquer on account of the three oaths;

- are enslaved on another continent;

- can be cut out of relations with a nation without repercussions from other nations.

Can someone please explain how and why they are perceived as holding any sort of structural power because I am struggling to parse this one out?

I am not discounting their rigid and obsolete hierarchy, their unwillingness to reform, their wariness toward out-groups or their political manipulation (that said, I don't think it's that much worse than other nations) - these are all elements that make them an interesting and realistic community -, but I am frankly confused about the way some talk about Aes Sedai as if they are the equivalent of billionaires and oligarchs.

To rephrase it, this isn't a question about whether or not Aes Sedai as a group are good or bad - Moiraine covered that in TEotW -, but whether they hold structural power to the extent characters (and fans) think they do. I think a lot of their rules exist to maintain the illusion they do, but in practice they don't and that illusion is the only thing keeping people from treating them like parias.

[kaurwreck]

I've seen a few posts about how if you were bookish as a kiddo, then you have an author with whom you have an irrational vendetta because of an English teacher. I keep trying to consider if I have one, but I don't think I do. I've definitely had English teachers I didn't respect, but I can't fathom taking them seriously enough to feel anything about their opinions on lit.

[wellijustfinnihedoneofthebooks]

Everyday i wake up and think abouthow sad i am that lestat the musical is objectively a horrible musical because i really do think interview with the vampire would probably make the best musical ever

[toytulini]

me, stupidly and weirdly resistant to listening to audio books vs reading a physical book for no real reason: man i wish there was a way to like, read a book while i crochet like i do with tv shows and movies and podcasts