Comments on: Action/reaction in fiction http://philangelus.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/actionreaction-in-fiction/ sarcasm served up daily Mon, 16 Nov 2009 04:00:49 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: John Desjarlais http://philangelus.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/actionreaction-in-fiction/#comment-932 John Desjarlais Fri, 18 Apr 2008 01:37:56 +0000 http://philangelus.wordpress.com/?p=187#comment-932 The other thing happening in the first example is that the participial phrase (with the -ing) is in the 'power position' at the end of the sentence. Reversing this - by putting the action first (raising the stone) and the dialog at the end, emphasizes the words, "You can't harm me." The other thing happening in the first example is that the participial phrase (with the -ing) is in the ‘power position’ at the end of the sentence. Reversing this – by putting the action first (raising the stone) and the dialog at the end, emphasizes the words, “You can’t harm me.”

]]> By: CricketB http://philangelus.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/actionreaction-in-fiction/#comment-897 CricketB Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:17:15 +0000 http://philangelus.wordpress.com/?p=187#comment-897 Good observation! My engineering brain just doesn't put down in that order unless prodded, but reversing it makes a better story. I agree with Ivy. It's reaction -> information/explanation, not reaction->action. I like Ivy's examples, too. You can put the actions in what might be reverse order to the clock, provided they are in the order experienced. It works (and can be misused) on a larger scale, too, as flashbacks. Good observation! My engineering brain just doesn’t put down in that order unless prodded, but reversing it makes a better story.

I agree with Ivy. It’s reaction -> information/explanation, not reaction->action. I like Ivy’s examples, too. You can put the actions in what might be reverse order to the clock, provided they are in the order experienced.

It works (and can be misused) on a larger scale, too, as flashbacks.

]]> By: ivyreisner http://philangelus.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/actionreaction-in-fiction/#comment-893 ivyreisner Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:34:07 +0000 http://philangelus.wordpress.com/?p=187#comment-893 That is so cool. I don't think you're turning the action->reaction pattern on its head. You're adding another factor, which is information, and doing it in a way that is completely brilliant. In the oldest for of storytelling, you'd have, "The arrow flew from the rearmost rank, striking Kamoses in the throat. The stunned Egyptians turned to see the newest recruit, Imhotep, fire the arrow." The arrow strikes and then it is fired, because that's closer to reality as they experienced it. The arrow struck and everyone would turn to see who fired it. Add a bit of "in the moment" excitement to the firing of the arrow (because Imhotep lowering his bow isn't as interesting) and you get one form of reaction->action. Not good. The other form is "Imhotep turned quickly after Nefertiti called his name". It kind of works better to have Nefertiti call and then have Imhotep turn. Otherwise the reader stumbles. I think that's the one we're more often warned against. You wouldn't want Snimmet to react to the stone a sentence before John shows it, would you? "Snimmet took a tentative step backward, because John had just held aloft a glowing stone." You have two reactions. Snimmet names the stone. Snimmet steps back. You're controlling tension through the choice of which reaction to show first and that's fantastic. I love it! That is so cool. I don’t think you’re turning the action->reaction pattern on its head. You’re adding another factor, which is information, and doing it in a way that is completely brilliant.

In the oldest for of storytelling, you’d have, “The arrow flew from the rearmost rank, striking Kamoses in the throat. The stunned Egyptians turned to see the newest recruit, Imhotep, fire the arrow.” The arrow strikes and then it is fired, because that’s closer to reality as they experienced it. The arrow struck and everyone would turn to see who fired it. Add a bit of “in the moment” excitement to the firing of the arrow (because Imhotep lowering his bow isn’t as interesting) and you get one form of reaction->action. Not good.

The other form is “Imhotep turned quickly after Nefertiti called his name”. It kind of works better to have Nefertiti call and then have Imhotep turn. Otherwise the reader stumbles. I think that’s the one we’re more often warned against. You wouldn’t want Snimmet to react to the stone a sentence before John shows it, would you? “Snimmet took a tentative step backward, because John had just held aloft a glowing stone.”

You have two reactions. Snimmet names the stone. Snimmet steps back. You’re controlling tension through the choice of which reaction to show first and that’s fantastic. I love it!

]]>