few days ago I read this post Blog Lara.
The difficulty of making the thought of the characters in and of itself not to fall nell'artificio dialogues. A black beast, that is.
Direct speech I find it always difficult.
because of a lack of spirit and ready wit. It takes me a bit 'in short, to find the answer. For this, usually, in the stories I adopt two options: either indirect speech (more or less free) or stream of consciousness (and here the problems multiply, accidnti). Yesterday I finished
Garasudo no Uchi. The first story chapters conclude, the new cycle (the old is one of the riders, but it stops with the 2004). It had to be fast , and it took me seven months. ^ ^ Not bad considering the surcharges for two years A breath of life ... However
.
Now I like it. Now I am satisfied. And tomorrow I know I'll be back on the computer to change and return, because I will look horrible. Bloody awful.
In general, however, as they proceeded, I riflettutto on two things in particular. And both, again, are linked to some posts of Lara.
One is this: the descizioni
Naya not described. Virtually ever. Not even in my head has a defined shape. Naya is a name that lives only a story. A sort of depersonalization nominal, if possible. Have not yet reached the level of Sarah Kane (if you omit the frustula mei, of course. But that's another discroso). But you could try. Character 1, character 2. Or even better: only 1 and 2. However
. Naya does not exist. If not as a narrator.
And here's the second point. The first person
. And again Lara put me the flea in the ear / . In short: I agree well with the idea that you write in first person is not easy.
Especially if you try to write a stream of consciousness.
I noticed. I went to slam prorpio strong.
With Naya, in fact.
I chose from the outset not to describe his thoughts. She would be speaking. In contrast with the other characters. But as I wrote (and ran into qustioni: now up, now smiling, now crying, laughing now ...) I'd say you speak, act and think together. How do I make it?
Oh, you can always resort to the usual ploy of the type:
" He tells me that ... And I say that ...
I sit and listen, cry and he ..."
I
him. He says. I answer.
Okay. But in a diary. If I'm describing something that happened in the first person (The past is not an obligation, it is clear). But if the event is happening ? The he says, I say do not exist in thought.
I do not think you answer and then speak. I speak and nothing else. And I turn to my intelocutore telling him. He is a guy who can be a thousand miles away. I give of yourself.
Damn!
It 's the same thing for the shares. If I want to sit down, I do not think to sit down and then I sit. I just do.
For example: I have to tell the first person in my room.
I do not know. But start with: I sit at the table and known that there is a squared red and white tablecloth spot with some of sauce here and there. I take the fork to my left or right and the knife and cut the meat that turns out to be a bit 'too hard.
I do not think that anyone would think so. None note, in person. You see, and then draw away. And processes in a personal way. Or forks. Why would I say I'm here or there? Their place I know well, when we learn to do inizaimo the table alone, right? And I do not think the silverware out of the blue decides to go for a walk around the table. And the meat, then. Obviously what I cut into the pot.
In short, the issue I have with afforntato Naya (unsuccessfully so unsatisfactory, though) is: How do I write in first person without describe? Il flusso di coscienza puro, insomma. Che faccia capire quello che sto facendo e dicendo come se lo si vedesse per immagini. senza cadere in quegli artifici teatrali che sono l'intercalare di vari dice, rispondo.
Che chiariranno anche, ma rompono del tutto la finzione narrativa della prima persona.
In conclusione: Naya è il primo tentativo (goffo e rasente il disastroso, temo) di trovare un mai personale soluzione al problema.
Se poi ci si mette King con il libro che ho letto...Ma questo è un altro discorso.
The difficulty of making the thought of the characters in and of itself not to fall nell'artificio dialogues. A black beast, that is.
Direct speech I find it always difficult.
because of a lack of spirit and ready wit. It takes me a bit 'in short, to find the answer. For this, usually, in the stories I adopt two options: either indirect speech (more or less free) or stream of consciousness (and here the problems multiply, accidnti). Yesterday I finished
Garasudo no Uchi. The first story chapters conclude, the new cycle (the old is one of the riders, but it stops with the 2004). It had to be fast , and it took me seven months. ^ ^ Not bad considering the surcharges for two years A breath of life ... However
.
Now I like it. Now I am satisfied. And tomorrow I know I'll be back on the computer to change and return, because I will look horrible. Bloody awful.
In general, however, as they proceeded, I riflettutto on two things in particular. And both, again, are linked to some posts of Lara.
One is this: the descizioni
Naya not described. Virtually ever. Not even in my head has a defined shape. Naya is a name that lives only a story. A sort of depersonalization nominal, if possible. Have not yet reached the level of Sarah Kane (if you omit the frustula mei, of course. But that's another discroso). But you could try. Character 1, character 2. Or even better: only 1 and 2. However
. Naya does not exist. If not as a narrator.
And here's the second point. The first person
. And again Lara put me the flea in the ear / . In short: I agree well with the idea that you write in first person is not easy.
Especially if you try to write a stream of consciousness.
I noticed. I went to slam prorpio strong.
With Naya, in fact.
I chose from the outset not to describe his thoughts. She would be speaking. In contrast with the other characters. But as I wrote (and ran into qustioni: now up, now smiling, now crying, laughing now ...) I'd say you speak, act and think together. How do I make it?
Oh, you can always resort to the usual ploy of the type:
" He tells me that ... And I say that ...
I sit and listen, cry and he ..."
I
him. He says. I answer.
Okay. But in a diary. If I'm describing something that happened in the first person (The past is not an obligation, it is clear). But if the event is happening ? The he says, I say do not exist in thought.
I do not think you answer and then speak. I speak and nothing else. And I turn to my intelocutore telling him. He is a guy who can be a thousand miles away. I give of yourself.
Damn!
It 's the same thing for the shares. If I want to sit down, I do not think to sit down and then I sit. I just do.
For example: I have to tell the first person in my room.
I do not know. But start with: I sit at the table and known that there is a squared red and white tablecloth spot with some of sauce here and there. I take the fork to my left or right and the knife and cut the meat that turns out to be a bit 'too hard.
I do not think that anyone would think so. None note, in person. You see, and then draw away. And processes in a personal way. Or forks. Why would I say I'm here or there? Their place I know well, when we learn to do inizaimo the table alone, right? And I do not think the silverware out of the blue decides to go for a walk around the table. And the meat, then. Obviously what I cut into the pot.
In short, the issue I have with afforntato Naya (unsuccessfully so unsatisfactory, though) is: How do I write in first person without describe? Il flusso di coscienza puro, insomma. Che faccia capire quello che sto facendo e dicendo come se lo si vedesse per immagini. senza cadere in quegli artifici teatrali che sono l'intercalare di vari dice, rispondo.
Che chiariranno anche, ma rompono del tutto la finzione narrativa della prima persona.
In conclusione: Naya è il primo tentativo (goffo e rasente il disastroso, temo) di trovare un mai personale soluzione al problema.
Se poi ci si mette King con il libro che ho letto...Ma questo è un altro discorso.
0 comments:
Post a Comment