What do you think to this plot? (brief)

[SineadTemptation]

Jist of it is that main character was a bully at school to one girl inparticular.

She becomes an adult, has kids of her own, feels guilty about her bullying behaviour and searches for the girl she bullied on facebook. Finds her, realises she's led a pretty crap adult life and makes it her mission to help her achieve more.

Things go ok for a while but the whole thing brings back memories that the bullied girl had actually surpressed and whilst the main character focusses on helping her build some amazing life, the bullied girl is actually plotting revenge.

Very, Very early stages yet but I'm thinking it will involve adultery, theft, humiliation etc etc as well as a bit of light comedy?

Would you give it a go?

[CoteDAzur]

I have not come back to this thread to taunt OP but to answer replies, most recently from Rosie who resurrected the thread from a two week hiatus with a post directed personally at me.

[Punkatheart]

Fine. I was being facetious. But it is unpleasant to constantly attempt to spoil the dreams of a young writer - then come back and 'kick her' again. My post was petty but yours are bordering on being cruel. To pick pick pick is odd.

The brave follow their dreams. It is up to professionals to decide if a person has the potential to be a writer. I am a published writer and I know exactly how difficult it is in the publishing world. Complete perfection is not expected. There are editors who can shape up any weaknesses, who can iron out dialect issues.

This is boring. Back to writing. I do hope OP that you are writing and submitting. It is an exciting field and mixing with other writers can be very inspirational.

[CoteDAzur]

What on earth are you talking about?

If you were picking at my posts, I'd suggest you read the ones where I say (1) I'm not aspiring to be a writer, (2) I've never said my English is perfect, especially since (3) I am not a native speaker of English.

Oooh, I'm so ashamed that I missed an "s" at the end of a word in one of the two foreign languages I am rather impressively fluent in

[Punkatheart]

Firstly, it is not strictly correct to end a sentence on a preposition. 'For' is a preposition.

Secondly that should read 'hopes' and not 'hope.'

Finally, I think you must have read or even studied English and American literature at school.

[CoteDAzur]

I've had both English Literature and American Literature at school.

Still, if you believe there are only a limited number of plots in all fiction books, you really can't have read many good ones.

[CoteDAzur]

I'm guessing that you haven't read the thread before you resurrected it, Rosie, because most of what you said was previously mentioned and refuted here.

Like, for example, the preposterous notion that "think to" is dialect.

Do feel free to educate us as to where in the UK this dialect is spoken, because the last person to suggest this (over two weeks ago) couldn't.

[CoteDAzur]

I'm guessing that you haven't read the thread before you resurrected it, Rosie, because most of what you said was previously mentioned and refuted here.

Like, for example, the preposterous notion that "think to" is dialect.

Do feel free to educate us as to where in the UK people use "think to" in place of

[RosieRed]

Oh Cote, go and jump off something.
a. There is such a phenomenon as dialect and prepositions differ between dialects. Americans say 'different than' whereas I would say 'different to'. b. this is a 'talk' forum, i.e. people don't refine their posts. c. Were Sinead to knock a book out and get a publisher interested, I would hazard a guess they'd bring in a person called an 'editor' to look at the language. I am sometimes privileged enough to edit the work of really fabulous authors and I've never seen an MS yet that didn't have at least one construction that pulled me up short.
If I wanted to be bitchy, I'd suggest you might enjoy editing but since you've clearly got no sense of humour or understanding of register, and since you've apparently never heard of the famous dictum regarding the very limited number of plots in literature, I'm guessing you've not got much of an Eng lit background.
But obviously I wouldn't actually say it.
Oops.

[ColonelBrandonsBiggestGroupie]

Terry Pratchett's Death is probably the best one because HE TALKS LIKE THIS. :)

[belgo]

at CoteDAzur, I have been desperate for someone to notice the all 'think to's in the thread titles (seen mainly in Style and Beauty). I cringe every time I read it!

[CoteDAzur]

I had to read it for our book club. Arrgh. It was torture. I ended up counting the number of times the words shimmering and glimmering were used in the book

The Book Thief had an OK premise, but it was not developed well, imho. I was especially disappointed with Death, who could at the very least be as interesting as Lestat in Interview With A Vampire but was instead rambling about the color of this and color of that, and frankly seemed to be about as intelligent as a lobotomized turtle

[ColonelBrandonsBiggestGroupie]

COte - Why ON EARTH did you read 'The Memory Keeper's Daughter' you silly person? It's obviously I book you would hate! I made the same mistake but at least I have the excuse that I'd read all 13 of my holiday books in Greece and was reduced to reading the crap left behind by other visitors to the apartments! It was monstrously bad.

I liked The Book Thief though.

[ColonelBrandonsBiggestGroupie]

Word Factory - I take it you meant me when you mentioned dismissive comments from readers? Since I have an English degree AND can write fairly well (have had a couple of bits published though only poetry and non-fiction pieces) AND read hundreds of books a year, I actually think that I do know something about the writer's job, as it were and am therefore able to make comments that whilst perhaps being dismissive are certainly intelligently considered.

And I stand by what I said about The Behaviour Of Moths - so there.

[CoteDAzur]

I read your post and that is not what you were saying.

Picasso's later paintings only appear childish and unsophisticated to the ignorant.

The books I was referring to are childish and unsophisticated.

[Punkatheart]

Read my post. That's exactly what I was saying. He was a master of the traditional and then moved on, experimenting with concepts and methods that still influence the art world today. I have also studied History of Art. But there will always be those who look at a deceptively 'primitive' or 'childlike' painting/novel and not understand the history or the journey.

I thought that a lot of writer friends were being snobbish about Dan Brown - perhaps a little jealous. I then tried to read one of his and it was depressing. Lazily written, sensationalist tosh.

Jackson Pollock and Gorky are two of my most beloved artists, although Gorky was better when he became less derivative.

[CoteDAzur]

Punkatheart - Tell those who say Picasso's work is "childish" to look up Cubism There is nothing simple or childish about Picasso's work.

This is a subject I know a bit about, having studied History of Art. Picasso was a very good painter in the traditional sense of the word, before he started with the Cubist movement. The idea was to paint the subject in time, with multiple planes visible, from many different perspectives, rather than as still life like a bowl of fruit.

[CoteDAzur]

Profound reflection and complex thoughts are not the only things that "ring my bell". I agree with you, it is very impressive when a writer manages to consistently remain in character throughout the book. Curious Incident is not the best example. Try reading Nick Cave's And The Ass Saw The Angel.

What I can't stand are books with simple plots and superficial thoughts, written with a 200-word vocabulary. Most Bestsellers, that is.

You seem to be saying that these books are written thus because they are told from the viewpoints of simpletons, which is an impressive achievement by their intellectual authors who are making a superlative effort to keep with the dumbed down voice of narration.

I disagree. Those books are written in simple sentences, with a limited vocabulary, and linear plot lines because that is all their authors are capable of. I'm thinking of shockingly badly written Bestsellers 1000 Splendid Suns, Memory Keeper's Daughter, The Book Thief, The Saving Graces, The Truth About Melody Browne, etc.

[Punkatheart]

I think of Picasso - for no other reason than he could draw superbly. He was truly a master of the pencil. But he chose to experiment, try other avenues - actually move on inventively from each point. When people look at his paintings and use words like 'childish' I always want to spin them around the room. Similarly, writers who write from childlike perspectives generally have a mastery of language - they then have to pick the appropriate words out of that vast box that is language. Yes, that does take enormous skill.

[wordfactory]

punk I absolutely do think books resonate more at certain times.

And I would say that since becomming a writer I notice the skill involved in books far more than I ever did.

I see dismissive comments from readers, particularly those who fancy themselves as a bit cultured like...and I think 'you have absolutely no Danny La Rue just how difficult what that author was trying to do.'

In my last book I tried to write five or six scenes from the point of view of someone with autism. Unbelievably hard. And I reread A Curious Incident and The Behaviour of Moths and thought WOW.

[wordfactory]

cote the fact that the entire book was written from that character's perspective is the point I was making.

Writing an entire book from one point of view and never erring from it is a huge huge challenge. To do it from the point of view of such a character as in Curious Incident is a tour de force. Ditto Room and The Behaviour of Moths.

Imagine a story where you can only say what the main character actually witnesses. No opportunity to explain what is happening elsewhere or give any information that the character doesn't know.
That is hard.
Now imagine that story told from the perspective of someone inarticulate, perhaps wit a very particular world view. A person who doesn't notice or pick up the sorts of things that a writer usually uses to entertain their reader.
That is beyond difficult.
Now imagine each and every sentence uses only the vocabulary/imagary/sentence structure that that character has. Never deviating.
Almost impossible.

Whilst complex sentences and authorial narration ring your bell (as they do many readers of course), as a writer, I would say that is the easy bit. Writing a book where the usual writerly tools are not available to you takes real skill.

Sometimes we pull it off and sometimes we don't.

[ninah]

I totally agree that a character need not be likeable to be fascinating.

[ColonelBrandonsBiggestGroupie]

Wolf Hall - bad writing imho for these reasons:

1. it is stupidly overlong and much of it is unnecessary padding and becomes boring (a good editor would have made her cull it)
   
2. the constant present tense thing is really irritating
   
3. the reference to 'he' when it could be one of several characters is just clumsy

[CoteDAzur]

Punkatheart - I like "the voice" of narration where it is exceptionally good like in Netherland or in most J G Ballard books, but that voice is created through masterful use of the language and not by some inner charm emanating from the author.

By the way, that should be "some books resonate", not "some books resonant"

[CoteDAzur]

wordfactory - I haven't read the other two books that you have mentioned, but there is a reason why "Curious Incident..." uses simple vocabulary and sentences - It is written from the perspective of a 15-year-old on the autistic spectrum.

[Punkatheart]

I am just reading Wolf Hall and I would disagree that it shows bad writing - although I am not that far into it.

Good points, especially about voice. Fascinating too how some books resonant. Also how they appeal at different times and stages of your life. Anyone noticed that?