Learning Character Details

When I envision and design a story, sometimes I already have a character in mind. Sometimes I create the character specifically for the story. In either case, I typically only have enough of the character designed for what the story needs to propel the plot. The character grows in depth as I discover the character’s details. This is one of the fun aspects of writing.

In my current story, the dragon Kedekitley is an example. At the story’s midpoint, Kedekitley points out to the human Sten that Sten has a mathematical calculation error in his bridge design. This is a turning point in the story as Sten learns the dragon is more than simply a beast of burden. The dragon is smart.

Later, in a scene with his life-mate Arizesyley, Kedekitley mentions finding the mathematical calculation error and blames it on Sten’s overconfidence. Arizesyley teases him saying Kedekitley knows about how being overconfident can cause one to make a mathematical calculation error. In his defense, Kedekitley says he only made a mathematical calculation error one time.

That exchange added facets to Kedekitley’s personality I had not known, and brought about scenes where other dragons mention he had once made a mathematical calculation error. Kedekitley is admired and considered a genius by the other dragons, but no one lets him forget he once made a mathematical calculation error.

I’m having so much fun.

Continuing to Work on Overlapping Events

Moving through the overlapping portions of these two stories has been instructive. I experimented with different methods to keep the two stories in sync and found that simply opening the two documents side by side and stepping through paragraph by paragraph works best.

I’m also enjoying comparing overlaps between Tui T. Sutherland’s Dragonslayer and the two stories The Dragonet Prophecy (Wings of Fire, #1) and The Brightest Night (Wings of Fire, #5). One difference between Sutherland’s stories and mine is in her stories, the dragons and humans (called scavengers by the dragons) do not speak a common language. In my stories, the language in the two stories is the same. That means I must keep the dialogue matching exactly even if I change the action beats to accommodate the different point-of-view characters.

This is a good exercise, and the stories are excellent. I am continuing to learn as I work on the project.

The Format You Use to Write is Your Business and No One Else’s

When I write, I use methods that help me be accurate and efficient, methods that help me find and fix errors, methods that help me avoid typos and blunders. I created a document format to help me accomplish this. What started me down this path were opportunities to see how a few successful writers worked. I felt encourage to experiment and develop a method that works best for me.

My writing format is as follows.
• 12-point Courier
• Double-spaced
• One-inch margins
• 25 lines per page
• Two spaces after sentences
• Two hyphens (‐‐) for em dash
• Underscore for italics

It shouldn’t have surprised me that this generated outrage from some people.

I was told “Courier is obsolete and no one uses it anymore and therefore I am wrong to use it.” There’s nothing wrong with Courier, and a monospace font makes the text visually easier for me to edit.

“Double-spacing is archaic and a waste.” I find double-spacing’s white space helps me concentrate on what I’m editing and it provides space for making notes on the page when I edit a printed version of the manuscript.

“One-inch margins are a waste of space.” I find one-inch margins provide the same benefits as double-spacing.

“Twenty-five lines per page is stupid.” Well, that’s what 12-point Courier, double-spaced, and one-inch margins gives me.

“Two spaces after sentences is archaic and outright wrong in this modern age.” I use two spaces when I’m writing because it helps me see the sentences better, which helps me edit better. I would use five spaces after sentences if it helped me write and edit better.

“Two hyphens (‐‐) for an em dash is so wrong. The word processor can change those to an em dash for you as you type.” That’s true; except, I sometimes miss that I typed a hyphen where I intended an em dash. By using two hyphens, I can see when I’m editing that I made a mistake and can fix it.

“Underscore for italics is an abomination. Just make them italics to start with.” It’s easy to mess-up italics when writing. By clearly marking them, I reduce my error rate as I write and edit.

I decided the problem is these complainers conflate submission guidelines with how one’s computer screen should look as one writes. They say one should write in the format one’s target audience wants the finished product to be in. Why? Moreover, I don’t necessarily know what the submission guidelines will be for the different markets where I might submit a manuscript. How am I to know which guideline is the proper guideline to follow when I’m in the writing phase of a spec project. I’ve been told there’s a standard. No, there’s no standard. Different venues can have different guidelines.

It’s strange, though, that it seems these same people who are so zealous about what is the proper way for a writer to write on a computer don’t have the same complaints when the writer writes by hand. If you write by hand, you can write anyway you want. Although, it wouldn’t surprise me if someone said there are rules about what kind of pen and paper a writer must use.

I believe writing and submitting are two different steps in the process. One does not dictate the other’s format. My method is to write in a format that maximizes my productivity and the quality of my work. That version is my “golden document.” It is the original. When the manuscript is finished and it’s time to submit it, send it to an editor, or deliver it to a client, I format a separate copy that meets the specifications the recipient provides.

Of course, it helps that I’m a master of my tools. A tweak to the document’s style settings and a few easy find-and-replace commands makes the needed changes. This might be a problem for some people because they haven’t mastered their tools and can’t make these simple changes. The solution to that is to master one’s tools.

My recommendation is to write using a method that works best for you to maximize the quality of your work instead of adhering to a style someone else dictates about how your working document should look. You don’t have to write in the format others want the finished product to be in. Make a copy of the finished version and adjust the formatting to meet the guidelines where you’re sending the manuscript. Always keep your golden document in your writing and editing format in case you need to go back and edit.

Each writer must find the method that works best for them. Everyone is different. One solution for all does not exist. What is your method?

Example of how my working document looks.
Example of how my working document looks.
It’s not readable because I’m still working to sell the story.
If you could read it, the First Publication Rights would be used up.