Neat things authors do

[Therin of Andor]

When a background character is described in such a way that you know who it is without their name being mentioned.

I was sure that I had guessed correctly that Dr Evan Wilson, in "Uhura's Song", was based on Bjo Trimble, "the woman who saved Star Trek". The physical description (short stature, freckles) and cheeky demeanour reminded me so much of Bjo.

I wrote to Janet Kagan to ask her and she said that she had never actually met Bjo, but that Dr Wilson was based on her own mother.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

I was sure that I had guessed correctly that Dr Evan Wilson, in "Uhura's Song", was based on Bjo Trimble

That's "Tail-Kinker to Ennien" to you! We meet the real Evan Wilson at the end of the book.

Having never actually met Bjo, that thought had never occurred to me; rather, (like, if memory serves correctly, at least one professional writer who's on TrekBBS) I'd always assumed that she was an author-surrogate (but far too well-written to be a Mary-Sue, even a subverted one), until I found out she was an "author's mother surrogate."

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

I was thinking more along the lines of "you know exactly which character it's supposed to be", not who the character is based on.

Cleverly accounting for discrepancies (factual and plot-related) and tying together seemingly unrelated threads is cool, too.

 

[JD]

Also, depending on the circumstances, I either like or am mildly disappointed when I think I know where the plot is going to go, but I guess wrong.

I certainly hear that. And I'm guessing that "the circumstances" are whether you like -- or dread -- the expected plot direction. At least, that's the case for me.

True, but sometimes it just annoys me that I wasn't a good guesser.

I'm the complete opposite, I much prefer it when I can't figure out where the plot is going. If the whole thing is based around a big surprise then it takes it down quite a few points for me if my guesses are right. I don't want to be right, I want to be surprised.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

Oh, I still like to be surprised - it's only occasionally that I think something is heading a particular way. Not sure if it's intentional misdirection, my own failure to pick up on clues, or something else.

 

[DonIago]

As an editor-writer, for better or worse I'm wired in a way that it's almost impossible for me not to speculate as to where a plot is going to go, and an alternately hilarious and distressing amount of the time, I'm right.

It's kind of worse that it applies to developments in the real world as well...

 

[Christopher]

As an editor-writer, for better or worse I'm wired in a way that it's almost impossible for me not to speculate as to where a plot is going to go, and an alternately hilarious and distressing amount of the time, I'm right.

Yeah -- when you know the nuts and bolts of how stories are structured, you can recognize when other writers are setting something up or using a familiar plot device.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

Being able to recognize it makes those few times where it doesn't go the way you think it will all the more enjoyable, or annoying, depending on what direction the writer takes the plot.

Edit: I'd like to add that I like it when an author begins each chapter with a quote that has something to do with that part of the story. Watership Down did that, and two authors I've been reading recently (Julie Klassen and Laura Frantz) do, too.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Yeah -- when you know the nuts and bolts of how stories are structured, you can recognize when other writers are setting something up or using a familiar plot device.

Yeah. I recall there was one Trek Lit author (A.C. Crispin, IIRC, but I'm not positive on that) who, when writing an introduction to a collection of Mike W. Barr's Mirror Universe Saga from DC Comics, noted that while she was usually very tough to fool when watching mysteries ("You watch. It'll be the piano tuner who's revealed as the serial killer"), MWB managed to surprise her three times over the course of his story, by zigging where she expected him to zag.

(Reminder that you can follow the link in my signature to MWB's GoFundMe to contribute and help him through a tough time.)

 

[Krupp]

Yeah -- when you know the nuts and bolts of how stories are structured, you can recognize when other writers are setting something up or using a familiar plot device.

I'm not hugely into the tricks of the trade, and to an extent I don't want to know so I can be gullible. But I do remember reading once about the rough rules of thumb around what % of the novel you should be introducing what elements and so I always approach the e.g., 50% mark, with the idea in mind that we are accelerating to an important part of the story.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

Dividing the book into parts 1, 2, 3, etc. also helps set the stage for a change, whether it's the mere passage of time, or a new phase of the story, such as beginning a journey, before and after a wedding, etc.

 

[David cgc]

Yeah -- when you know the nuts and bolts of how stories are structured, you can recognize when other writers are setting something up or using a familiar plot device.

I remember seeing someone complain about a clickbait article or video titled something like, "Knowing this one weird trick will spoil every movie you watch from now on!" and it was about Chekhov's Gun.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

Granted, the law never says how something has to come into play, just that it must. The author has leeway. Will it be the obvious way, the funny fake-out/misdirection, an unexpected victim/wielder, or something else?

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Chekhov's Gun isn't a law; just a trope. And like any other trope, it can be averted, subverted, lampshaded, downplayed, and otherwise played with.

 

[DonIago]

I hate it when I read a book or see a film where I'm sure something is going to ended up being a Chekhov's Gun...and then it turns out that nope, it was just there for the sake of being there.

Like when Kirk had his Commodore PET in TWOK? Why even introduce that if you're not going to make use of it at a critical plot juncture?

 

[Christopher]

Chekhov's Gun isn't a law; just a trope. And like any other trope, it can be averted, subverted, lampshaded, downplayed, and otherwise played with.

I saw it claimed recently that Anton Chekhov actually meant it as a complaint, not a recommendation -- that he was criticizing the tendency to write plays that were so sparsely written that they contained nothing beyond the bare bones of plot mechanics. So when he spoke of a rule that said the gun on the wall "should" be fired later, he was saying it was a rule followed by the other playwrights he was criticizing, but it got taken out of context and mistaken for his own advice. However, I don't know if that's true or not.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

To coin a phrase, Fascinating.

Or to put it another way:

Margaret Dumont, as Mrs. Rittenhouse: I'm fascinated!
Groucho, as Captain Spaulding: I'm fascinated too. Right here on the arm.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

I saw it claimed recently that Anton Chekhov actually meant it as a complaint, not a recommendation -- that he was criticizing the tendency to write plays that were so sparsely written that they contained nothing beyond the bare bones of plot mechanics. So when he spoke of a rule that said the gun on the wall "should" be fired later, he was saying it was a rule followed by the other playwrights he was criticizing, but it got taken out of context and mistaken for his own advice. However, I don't know if that's true or not.

That's interesting...hopefully whoever was in charge of props had enough imagination to overcome it, if true.

 

[Tuskin38]

Well, I contributed enough negativity to the "author habits that annoy you" thread that fairness dictates I weigh in here, too. I don't generally like the idea of sequel books to episodes (small universe problem) but with respect to 'looking at a classic episode in whole new way' I would suggest Bennett's Ex Machina, which adds so much depth to the "For the World is Hollow..." story and characters that I can't watch that episode now without also thinking about the elaborations given to it in the book. Makes a somewhat underwhelming episode (that nevertheless has interesting core ideas*) much more enjoyable

*pun not originally intended, but now formally ratified

Apparently Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci have also said that book is one of their favourite Trek novels.

 

[JD]

As an editor-writer, for better or worse I'm wired in a way that it's almost impossible for me not to speculate as to where a plot is going to go, and an alternately hilarious and distressing amount of the time, I'm right.

It's kind of worse that it applies to developments in the real world as well...

My drives me crazy when we watch mystery shows together, because she's gotten to know the tropes so well that she's convinced who did it the moment they're introduced, and a good 90% of the time she's right. I eventually asked her to stop telling me, since it tended to ruin things for me.