Nevermore like Nethermore
Writing April 19th, 2006Ooh boy, last night Nethermore was this close to being canned for a time indefinite–and yes, if that ever happens, you can still throw fruit at me.
I sent a six-page document detailing the magic system in Nethermore to a writer friend of mine whose opinion I trust and whose writing I admire. The object of this was to get some feedback so that I could press ahead on the novel and avoid some pitfalls that his 17+ novels of experience had shown him. We had quite the discussion, and it was very insightful and helpful.
Some of the things I learned:
1) Books that sit too long in your head before being written tend to take on a life of their own as ideas get interwoven and everything becomes way too complex. The solution to this problem is focus and streamline the story, if possible, or just write the silly thing and get it out of your system. On future books, it’s better to not let the idea sit so long in the fridge that it starts to own the fridge.
2) When starting a book it’s best to have one unique idea for the following: each viewpoint character, the world, the magic, and the conflict. If you get too many unique ideas going on in each of those categories, then the book may get too complex for readers to follow. Clarity and character are the keys to accessible stories. In Nethermore I was making things too complex, sometimes unnecessarily so.
3) Themed magic systems. My magic system had no real focus. Once I was able to articulate what I wanted my main character to be able to do, then the magic system fell into place. After that, it was easy to think up powers that my character needed in order to fulfill his job. The connection between the magic and Nethermore became a whole lot clearer, and the magic itself became more internally consistent.
4) Characters in conflict make the most interesting characters. Make the conflict personal. For example, if you have a character who wants to stop a village from being destroyed because he hates it when people take over villages, then that’s all fine and good. But the main character should be a member of the village that’s about to get destroyed. The conflict for her is personal.
We talked about a lot of other things, and I took a few notes, but in the end, despite some rearranging and changing of the magic system, I left feeling motivating to continue writing.
So Nethermore is still being written, with some changes made to the magic system. And I’m still going to finish this monster by the end of July.
Oh, by the way, here’s today’s cool pic. What’s with this? Do they just happen to have Fluffy chained in their front yard to keep out attackers? Or did this lady climb the fence at the zoo and this is just the Before picture of a Before and After set?
April 19th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
Mmm… fruit…
So other than licking my chops at my rotten fruit hurling prospects, I did have some comments:
2. I agree with the complexity issue. I read A Fire Upon the Deep by Vernor Vinge and it was really hard to follow because there were too many new ideas that were presented and I couldn’t keep them all straight. There was some catastrophic things happening, but I couldn’t tell you what they were or why they were happening. This did affect my opinion of the book in a negative way. (I mention this book because it was even a Hugo Award winner in 1993.)
4. Yes, conflict is good. But what would be even better is if the character didn’t live in that village, but the reason he hated villages being destroyed was because his already was, but would receive some fantastic personal benefit if the current village in danger was destroyed!
April 20th, 2006 at 11:32 am
Hey, Justin, welcome to Nethermore, and thanks for your comments.
I haven’t read A Fire Upon the Deep, but I’ve heard about it. I’m crossing my fingers that my stories won’t be impenetrable to the general public. I just want to be able to write books for a living. Confusing people can only hurt me in this goal. If I wanted to confuse people I would have become a Mathematician. =)
I agree with you on point #4. In fact, the character whose village was once destroyed and is now the destroyer–for whatever reason–provides a great conflicted villain. The cool thing about multiple viewpoints in a book is that we can have the conflicted villain, and the character in the village that is about to be destroyed.
May 5th, 2006 at 6:46 am
Your friend gives good advice, Isaac, but I have to say I am leery of the whole concept of “magic systems.” Magic should be uncategorizable by its nature. If magic is defined as a system, it comes dangerously close to becoming a gimmick.
I’m not saying anything against what you’re doing specifically, Isaac. I haven’t seen your magic system or read your novel, after all. Just grumbling about a pet peeve, that’s all.
If you are all interested, and I know I’m in danger of sounding fey, I prefer to think of magic as a metaphor for art. When it happens, it is a moment of inspiration and miracle and metamorphosis. It shouldn’t be a procedure or pseudo-technology. I guess what I’m trying to say is that even in a fantasy world, magic shouldn’t be an everyday thing familiar to people so it becomes humdrum. Otherwise, how does one remind the modern jaded reader of fantasy that magic is a wondrous thing?
Bugger, I’m probably being annoying now, right? Sorry, I’ll be quiet now.
May 5th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
I like to look at magic systems as a continuum. On one side you have magic that’s unexplainable (the magic you describe) and on the other side you have magic that is so rule-based that it might as well be called technology or science. I’m not going to say that one way is right and another way is not.
What it boils down to is the kind of magic that you like to read about. I have several books that I want to write someday that lean toward the pure magic you speak of. But I equally enjoy unique “techno-magic” systems. Nethermore is what I would consider a techno-magic book. The magic in the book becomes a metaphor, not necessarily for art, but for technological dependancy in our modern world.
I believe there’s a place for both kinds of magic–the magic that is technology and the magic that is strange, new, and wondrous.
Great comments. Thanks for dropping by, TAB!
May 5th, 2006 at 7:37 pm
You’re probably right. I spoke with more absolutism than I intended. I tend to do that sometimes when I get excited about a topic.
Glad you enjoy my commentary, despite how idiosyncratic it is.
May 6th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
Your comments are always welcome! Even the “idiosyncratic” ones! Hope to see more of you here.