# Mythic Scribes Writing Jargon?



## Devor (Jul 17, 2017)

Hey Scribes,

I was wondering if there were words or phrases that you use to help you write or that might help others learn how to write a better story.  I'm referring to words like "Hook" or "Pinch Point" or "Activate Your Verbs," or possibly tropes like "Lampshade" or "McGuffin."

But I'm also looking for words that might not be so common.  In particular, Mythic Scribes members have coined words like "info-littering" and "waypoint writer."  Are there others that I've missed?

I ask because I'm thinking about whether it would be helpful to put together a tightly trimmed glossary or other materials that might help to push our collective understanding of the writing process.

Thanks Scribes!


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jul 17, 2017)

I talk about Suspension of Disbelief a lot. As well as Rule of Cool, which is related. 

Uhhhhhh 

I know there are a bunch of tropes that I talk about all the time...


----------



## FifthView (Jul 17, 2017)

"Waypoint writer" was a great one. 

I think I've recently coined "lure" and "double-narrator" but I have a peculiar way of looking at things, sometimes I stretch when trying to explain what I have in mind, and I think that there might be a danger in codifying what is merely personal and perhaps not fully baked.

There's a recent thread about cliffhangers that links an article which seems to redefine cliffhanger or else coopts the term for any sort of ... heh, chapter-ending lure. I don't have a problem w/ that per se, because I thought all the examples were great things to consider, but I think this gets at the problem of codification. The traditional view of cliffhangers was a very particular sort of thing and redefining it might cause confusion for those who haven't/don't see the non-traditional definition.

I look at tension differently than some, I think, and wonder if sometimes this word can cause confusion in a similar way. What do we mean by ____________ [fill in the blank]?  Even now when discussing prologues I wonder if there's a difference between the standard chapter-like prologue and other material that merely frames a story. When someone thinks of "prologue," what is the first thought that comes to mind?


----------



## FifthView (Jul 17, 2017)

But in the spirit of things, I'd nominate "make it worse" for the list.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jul 17, 2017)

In my online & live crit groups, I use the term "Unnecessary Precursor". By that, I mean lead in words for a POV character's perceptions that usually aren't needed. 

For example, if my character is looking at something, an unnecessary precursor might be, "Eva saw the red stains seeping through and spreading over his white cotton shirt..." 

The unnecessary precursor there is, "Eva saw". I say _unnecessary_ because if the author instead simply described the stain, without writing "Eva saw", the reader would innately understand that the POV is seeing this. 

"A red stain seeped through and spread over his white cotton shirt." 

Other examples might be, "He began" where just showing the character take action tells the reader the character began some task, without having to say so.


----------



## TheCatholicCrow (Jul 17, 2017)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> In my online & live crit groups, I use the term "Unnecessary Precursor". By that, I mean lead in words for a POV character's perceptions that usually aren't needed.
> 
> For example, if my character is looking at something, an unnecessary precursor might be, "Eva saw the red stains seeping through and spreading over his white cotton shirt..."
> 
> ...



I think that also qualifies as "filtering". I like your term better.


----------



## Russ (Jul 17, 2017)

TheCatholicCrow said:


> I think that also qualifies as "filtering". I like your term better.



That is indeed filtering.


----------



## Devor (Jul 17, 2017)

I like "unnecessary precursor."  Big words, but they're to the point.  "Filtering" is a little high-concept.  But maybe "unnecessary" isn't strong enough because those phrases add a distance that isn't just redundant, it can actually hurt the prose.  Maybe a "distancing precursor"?  (Not to intrude on your writing groups, of course.)

"Rule of Cool" is a good one.  It's one of those basic storytelling tropes, not one of those super-specific ones like "Chosen One" or "Dark Lord."  "Suspension of Disbelief" is one of those that has got to be in any writer's lingo.

I like "make it worse," but doesn't that come from Maas?  If so, I _think_ that's okay to use, but it's got to be credited where appropriate.

What do you mean by Lure and Double-Narrator, FifthView?  I must've missed those discussions.

I forget who coined Waypoint Writer, but that's easy to look up.  "Ghost" coined Info-Littering, but I don't think she's around anymore.


----------



## FifthView (Jul 17, 2017)

Yeah, I think "make it worse" is from Maas. I picked it up here, principally during this conversation: https://mythicscribes.com/forums/writing-questions/16501-how-can-get-any-worse.html

Lure and Double-Narrator are too vague at this point to be of much use perhaps. 

A Lure is something like a pithy turn of phrase, unusual or odd statement, vivid metaphor, what-have-you that leads a reader to keep reading onward for the next few sentences or paragraphs; I'd used it in contrast to "hook," although some use "hook" to mean just this sort of thing at the beginning of a book. (So this goes back to that issue of redefining terms.)

I'd used Double-Narrator to describe that blending effect of having a narrator who is not the character and a strong character voice, for instance in a close third person limited, so that the two often become barely distinguishable. This also sometimes happens with omniscient third narrators who "ventriloquize" a character voice during narration (although this point wasn't raised in the same discussion, I think.)

But I think that these two may still be idiosyncratic at this point.


----------



## Russ (Jul 17, 2017)

Devor said:


> I like "make it worse," but doesn't that come from Maas?  If so, I _think_ that's okay to use, but it's got to be credited where appropriate.



I am pretty sure that goes ways back before Maass.  Chandler articulated it as "when in doubt have someone walk through the door with a gun in his hand" and Elmore Leonard and other guys articulated the same thing in different ways.

And I don't think Maass will mind if we  use it.

Personally I use filtering and hear it used quite often among writers.  I think it is better than "Unnecessary Precursors" because it is more specific.  There are other kinds of UP's in my view of writing, such as what I like to call "Weasel Words".

Edit:

It does indeed appear that the make it worse idea goes way back before Mr. Maass:

“The writer’s job is to get the main character up a tree, and then once they are up there, throw rocks at them.” - Vladimir Nabokov,


----------



## Heliotrope (Jul 17, 2017)

Chesterama, or "Chessie" was the waypoint writer I think. I liked that too. 

Lure was from a massive "hook" discussion we had a while back. You could search my post "casting the lure: what bait to use and how to use it." 

And double narrator was from a POV discussion we had recently had about third close vs. Third omni.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jul 17, 2017)

More often, I think, I've seen these called distancing verbs, or simply "distancers". Filter also, but I think distancing is really an accurate description.



T.Allen.Smith said:


> In my online & live crit groups, I use the term "Unnecessary Precursor". By that, I mean lead in words for a POV character's perceptions that usually aren't needed.
> 
> For example, if my character is looking at something, an unnecessary precursor might be, "Eva saw the red stains seeping through and spreading over his white cotton shirt..."
> 
> ...


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jul 17, 2017)

I think waypoint writer was mine seeing that it is what I am. But I could've stolen it, or it could be a creation from multiple points, nothing's truly original.

The first mention of lures as mini-hooks predates the most recent big hook/lure discussions by quite a while, I think. Months, I think. Later it caught on.



Heliotrope said:


> Chesterama, or "Chessie" was the waypoint writer I think. I liked that too.
> 
> Lure was from a massive "hook" discussion we had a while back. You could search my post "casting the lure: what bait to use and how to use it."
> 
> And double narrator was from a POV discussion we had recently had about third close vs. Third omni.


----------



## Devor (Jul 17, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> Chesterama, or "Chessie" was the waypoint writer I think. I liked that too.



It was Dem (see below).  But speaking of Chessie, what happened?  When I searched for Waypoint Writer, I noticed it looks like her account was deleted.





Demesnedenoir said:


> I outline nothing, ever, when I did, it did me zero good... that said I am not a pantser.
> 
> With screenplays I learned the value of index cards, and I could see that working for short novels, but for my current project, where the first book will be 150k words, there's just no damned way I'm going to know all the details.
> 
> So, what I would call myself is a waypoint writer. I know where I'm going, I know where I'm starting, and I know (or have a good idea) of the key plotpoints in between. For me, with a large project, this road is just too twisting and winding with so many turns that might take me to the same place to possibly be hardcore about outlining the journey. But on the other hand, it's too big to just wing it. And no, I don't write much of anything down, unless it's actual writing... for instance, the ending of book three is rough drafted already while I'm in edit on the first book and in the early stages of writing book 2.


----------



## Devor (Jul 17, 2017)

@Russ,

For sure the idea goes back quite a ways before Maass, but I think using the actual phrase comes from him.  Although I doubt it's a real issue.

What do you mean by "Weasel Words"?


----------



## FifthView (Jul 17, 2017)

Demesnedenoir said:


> The first mention of lures as mini-hooks predates the most recent big hook/lure discussions by quite a while, I think. Months, I think. Later it caught on.



I remember introducing it here: https://mythicscribes.com/forums/wr...s-first-five-pages-post268042.html#post268042

But that discussion wasn't long after you posted your book's prologue in Showcase, I think.  I remembered saying I wasn't quite hooked by it...then gave a description of a fish intrigued by it, keeping it in view, heh. During the conversation linked above, I coined "lure," still remembering my feeling during that conversation about your prologue. Maybe the term was used before and something in my brain recalled it, I don't know. I do think that previous discussions before all this may have circled the idea of "mini hooks," or maybe it was your mention of mini hooks that prompted my brain to think "lure." 

Edit: So I could see the entry following the format *Lures (aka Mini-Hooks)* or else *Mini-Hooks (aka Lures)* heh.

Maybe some of the others, like filtering, could have various aka's.

But all of this combined with the "codification" and idiosyncracy issue leaves me wondering if the guide to the jargon ought to be cast as a _Translation Guide for Understanding the Inmates_ sort of thing, heh.


----------



## Drakevarg (Jul 17, 2017)

Russ said:


> I am pretty sure that goes ways back before Maass.  Chandler articulated it as "when in doubt have someone walk through the door with a gun in his hand" and Elmore Leonard and other guys articulated the same thing in different ways.



I think Chandler's Law (as TVTropes calls it) is more of a way to jump-start things when you start running out of ideas. Whereas the "make it worse" concept was more along the lines of "more misery = more interesting." Debates on that were kinda why that thread exploded.

In the spirit of a jargon glossary though, what the heck is a waypoint writer?


----------



## Devor (Jul 17, 2017)

Drakevarg said:


> In the spirit of a jargon glossary though, what the heck is a waypoint writer?



In between a pantser and an outliner, a waypoint writer figures out the big plot point but wings it in between.


----------



## Drakevarg (Jul 17, 2017)

Devor said:


> In between a pantser and an outliner, a waypoint writer figures out the big plot point but wings it in between.



Pretty much how I write then, since I'm one of those writers who thinks of characters as being largely autonomous from my plot needs, so I can't necessarily predict what they'd do. Stems from getting my start in tabletop gaming, I suppose.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jul 17, 2017)

You formalized it, for sure, LOL. Pretty sure the connection between hook and lure goes back a ways, might've been bait mentioned too, LOL. But I could be confusing other conversations not on MS.



FifthView said:


> I remember introducing it here: https://mythicscribes.com/forums/wr...s-first-five-pages-post268042.html#post268042
> 
> But that discussion wasn't long after you posted your book's prologue in Showcase, I think.  I remembered saying I wasn't quite hooked by it...then gave a description of a fish intrigued by it, keeping it in view, heh. During the conversation linked above, I coined "lure," still remembering my feeling during that conversation about your prologue. Maybe the term was used before and something in my brain recalled it, I don't know. I do think that previous discussions before all this may have circled the idea of "mini hooks," or maybe it was your mention of mini hooks that prompted my brain to think "lure."
> 
> ...


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jul 17, 2017)

Yeah, noticed a while back Ches disappeared, didn't know anything was deleted. No idea what's up there.



Devor said:


> It was Dem (see below).  But speaking of Chessie, what happened?  When I searched for Waypoint Writer, I noticed it looks like her account was deleted.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jul 17, 2017)

The notion of lures goes back to at least a month before. I found Helio discussing the idea on 5/24 in the showcase, and from the description, it looks like it had been discussed previously. But it's a clear differentiation between hook and lure. For some reason I think Helio and I got into a chat at some point, but I'm not even sure where my keys are right now, so who the hell knows ;P I'm not finding the origin beyond that, if there is one. 

And yes, the prologue launched the different types of hooks questions, I referred to a soft hook, and things went goofy from there, LOL. 



FifthView said:


> I remember introducing it here: https://mythicscribes.com/forums/wr...s-first-five-pages-post268042.html#post268042
> 
> But that discussion wasn't long after you posted your book's prologue in Showcase, I think.  I remembered saying I wasn't quite hooked by it...then gave a description of a fish intrigued by it, keeping it in view, heh. During the conversation linked above, I coined "lure," still remembering my feeling during that conversation about your prologue. Maybe the term was used before and something in my brain recalled it, I don't know. I do think that previous discussions before all this may have circled the idea of "mini hooks," or maybe it was your mention of mini hooks that prompted my brain to think "lure."
> 
> ...


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jul 17, 2017)

I really liked how the term _promise_ was used in the context of establishing reader expectations. I don't know if it's actually used by anyone else, but it's helped me a lot with the work I'm doing on my current WiP.

I'd say _promise_ in this context is the promise between the story and the reader about what the story will deliver if the reader keeps on reading. Makes sense?


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jul 17, 2017)

Another good addition, IMO, would traditional prologue and chapter prologue. There are at least two major styles of prologue and it wouldn't be the worst to have that jotted down.

Another item that gets tossed around here,  my editor brought my attention to this on some email I wrote... is that "prose" when used to discuss a writer's work tends to indicate their writing style, word choice, etc, as separate from the quality of the story told.  Delineating it from the word "writing" which is typically taken more inclusively. But I'm not sure how prevalent that is, might be just a couple people and myself, LOL. An example would be:

I like Rothfuss' prose, but his story-telling bores me, so overall I'm not fond of his writing.


----------



## FifthView (Jul 17, 2017)

Ah, I found that:



Heliotrope said:


> When writing the first page of your novel you must include a fairly hefty lure (the bigger and shinier the better) and a decent sized hook. The hook must be large enough that it keeps the reader engaged until they get to the next lure and hook (tension raising) which will then carry them along to the next one.
> 
> How many hooks (raising tension) does a book need? About one every page.



It's not quite the same as the later discussion, but it's pretty obvious this seeded the idea for me. I commented in that thread only a little afterward and would have read that!


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jul 17, 2017)

Good one to add, I know this is one of those terms that goes way back. Screenwriting a couple decades ago, I think that was already widely used. Think there's even a book on writing (never read it) that deals with this. But the basic notion probably goes back further. Wouldn't surprise me if McKee spoke of it... Hard to say, but anyhow, a good term, the story promise.



Svrtnsse said:


> I really liked how the term _promise_ was used in the context of establishing reader expectations. I don't know if it's actually used by anyone else, but it's helped me a lot with the work I'm doing on my current WiP.
> 
> I'd say _promise_ in this context is the promise between the story and the reader about what the story will deliver if the reader keeps on reading. Makes sense?


----------



## FifthView (Jul 17, 2017)

The Writing Excuses crew uses _promise_ regularly. That's where I first picked up on the idea, myself.


----------



## DeathtoTrite (Jul 17, 2017)

I feel like TvTropes does a pretty good job with a lot of these words... I know that's generally how I learned about unkown words.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jul 17, 2017)

FifthView said:


> The Writing Excuses crew uses _promise_ regularly. That's where I first picked up on the idea, myself.



I clearly should pay more attention to that - and other discussions of storytelling theory in general.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jul 17, 2017)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Yeah, noticed a while back Ches disappeared, didn't know anything was deleted. No idea what's up there.



 Yeah, weird. I just checked too and she has no account at all. I've never seen that before. I wonder if she requested to be deleted? (Why do I feel a sci fi story coming on here now.....)


----------



## Heliotrope (Jul 17, 2017)

Yeah, lots of people use promise. I first saw it in "save the cat" by Blake Snyder. He refers to keeping your "promise of the premise".


----------



## Russ (Jul 17, 2017)

Devor said:


> What do you mean by "Weasel Words"?



So Weasel Words are an unnecessary precursor that particularly tends to inflict lawyers who are switching to writing fiction (as if they weren't already doing that!).  Lawyers who draft stuff will often try and leave themselves some wiggle room and can from time to time avoid being precise so that they are hard to pin down.  It can also be caused by spending too much time around hyper-literalists on the inter web.

In fiction it can manifest itself as things such as "_seemed like_ it was going fast" or "_appeared to be_ gigantic in size".  

I refer to them as Weasel Words, as in, "words that let you weasel out from actually saying something strong and to the point."

It really should go in the "recovering lawyers" handbook.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jul 17, 2017)

Yeah, Sanderson uses that in his BYU lectures too, forgot about that.  I'm pretty sure it was a big deal in screenwriting because they're dealing with multi-million $ budgets, and one of the sure fire ways to lose those millions was to produce a movie that broke it's story "promise". My brain is struggling, it might've been a different term that basically meant the same thing. But it wasn't as simple as expectations, although those two things are very similar. Movies very rarely break promises anymore, accept of course any Will Farrell movie that promises to be funny, heh heh. Twist ending movies can certainly threaten to break promises, which makes them risky if not done well. So at least books get to take more risks than movies, heh heh.

A broken expectation movie was Clint Eastwood's _The Beguiled_, but that was more an advertising/hype issue than story issue. 



FifthView said:


> The Writing Excuses crew uses _promise_ regularly. That's where I first picked up on the idea, myself.


----------



## FifthView (Jul 17, 2017)

Svrtnsse said:


> I clearly should pay more attention to that - and other discussions of storytelling theory in general.



I don't know if there's a specific use that predates their use. (Writing Excuses.) They use it very broadly, in the sense that you can promise lots of things to a reader, not just what a story is going to be about. Something as simple as signaling plot turns, specific character interactions, whether a book is going to be humorous or serious, and so forth. Maybe GRRM's decision to have Bran shoved out the window was signaling the type of story he was telling; certainly, chopping off Ned Stark's head would've sealed the deal. Basically, raising the sort of expectations that usually require you to carry through.


----------



## FifthView (Jul 17, 2017)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Twist ending movies can certainly threaten to break promises, which makes them risky if not done well.



In one podcast, Sanderson comments that the good twist endings still fulfill promises that have been made, just not in the way the reader expects.

But this gets tricky because there are ways to promise subtly, or to stick in enough foreshadowing that maybe you thought was one thing but was really promising another, and you only realize this at the end.


----------



## Devor (Jul 17, 2017)

Russ said:


> So Weasel Words are an unnecessary precursor that particularly tends to inflict lawyers who are switching to writing fiction (as if they weren't already doing that!).  Lawyers who draft stuff will often try and leave themselves some wiggle room and can from time to time avoid being precise so that they are hard to pin down.  It can also be caused by spending too much time around hyper-literalists on the inter web.
> 
> In fiction it can manifest itself as things such as "_seemed like_ it was going fast" or "_appeared to be_ gigantic in size".
> 
> ...



See, I like "Weasel Words" more than both "filtering" or "unnecessary precursors."  It's broader, less formal, and not too high-concept.  You're using these words to weasel out of saying something firmly and directly.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jul 17, 2017)

Yeah, weasel words are a common writer affliction outside of just lawyers. I've broken this in my own writing, but in real life my wife still has problems pinning me down on anything. Is the sky blue? Yeah, seems that way.

Filler words would be another good term to throw in, my favorite to hate being "that".



Russ said:


> So Weasel Words are an unnecessary precursor that particularly tends to inflict lawyers who are switching to writing fiction (as if they weren't already doing that!).  Lawyers who draft stuff will often try and leave themselves some wiggle room and can from time to time avoid being precise so that they are hard to pin down.  It can also be caused by spending too much time around hyper-literalists on the inter web.
> 
> In fiction it can manifest itself as things such as "_seemed like_ it was going fast" or "_appeared to be_ gigantic in size".
> 
> ...


----------



## Russ (Jul 17, 2017)

Devor said:


> See, I like "Weasel Words" more than both "filtering" or "unnecessary precursors."  It's broader, less formal, and not too high-concept.  You're using these words to weasel out of saying something firmly and directly.



But in a strict sense Weasel Words are different from Filtering.  If I was doing this mathematically I would suggest that filtering and WW are both subsets of the larger set of UPs.  If that makes sense.

The idea of a promise to the reader goes back decades before Writing Excuses or Save the Cat (although I love them both).

I can tell you people were using the expression "promise to a reader" before the  year 2000.

Some might ascribe it to Checkov or Hitchcock.  Nancy Kress was teaching the idea years ago, as was David Morrell.

There was a great deal of thought about writing going on even before the internet I think...

Hey Demesnedenoir...clear some space in your PM box.  I have some hot off the presses news for you.


----------



## FifthView (Jul 17, 2017)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Another item that gets tossed around here,  my editor brought my attention to this on some email I wrote... is that "prose" when used to discuss a writer's work tends to indicate their writing style, word choice, etc, as separate from the quality of the story told.



I had a problem–should I call it that?–of encountering something posted in Showcase and the author asking for comments on the "prose." I thought, whelp, that's a wide open door! There was also a question about tone, but I thought, how can tone be addressed without addressing the prose which leads to an experience of the tone?


----------



## Aurora (Jul 17, 2017)

FifthView said:


> I had a problem—should I call it that?—of encountering something posted in Showcase and the author asking for comments on the "prose." I thought, whelp, that's a wide open door! There was also a question about tone, but I thought, how can tone be addressed without addressing the prose which leads to an experience of the tone?


Tone would just be a result of the combined elements...right? As a side note, I think that asking to be critiqued for prose only is dangerous. Story needs to come first! Of course, the quality of the narrative/prose/tone all of it leads to the clarity of the story, how a reader is able to decipher and relate to story. But if folks are only asking to be critiqued for prose instead of story, it's like asking to try the cake batter before the cake is baked, if you get what I mean.


----------



## Devor (Jul 17, 2017)

On the subject, I usually use "narrative" to refer to the "prose" itself - is that the right word or am I using it wrong or is it iffy or what?


----------



## Russ (Jul 17, 2017)

Devor said:


> On the subject, I usually use "narrative" to refer to the "prose" itself - is that the right word or am I using it wrong or is it iffy or what?



I do the same thing.  So if it is wrong, at least you are not alone.


----------



## FifthView (Jul 17, 2017)

Aurora said:


> Tone would just be a result of the combined elements...right? As a side note, I think that asking to be critiqued for prose only is dangerous. Story needs to come first! Of course, the quality of the narrative/prose/tone all of it leads to the clarity of the story, how a reader is able to decipher and relate to story. But if folks are only asking to be critiqued for prose instead of story, it's like asking to try the cake batter before the cake is baked, if you get what I mean.



The case in question was not a whole story but only an excerpt, I think. I do think tone results from combined elements, so I didn't feel too bad digging into the prose when I responded. I don't even know if tone can be considered a story element, per se? And with an excerpt, I'm not sure how story can be critiqued.

But I wasn't sure at the time if maybe my focus on the prose was not what was being sought.

D's mention of the difference between "prose" and "writing" makes me wonder if confusing these two could lead to misunderstandings when critiques are sought. Heck, if someone had said, "Is my writing good?" then I'd've probably been looking at the prose. It's not something I've given much thought to, this difference in terms.


----------



## Aurora (Jul 17, 2017)

When someone asks if their writing is good, to me that's the same as asking if their story is good. They usually mean their prose ie narrative. My head tells me story. What I see a lot of new writers do is request to be critiqued and praised for pretty words, when readers could literally give two donkeys' bottoms about the prettiness of words. It's story that matters. It's characters that matter. It's plot that matters. It's delivering story promise that matters. 

Totally off track here...but I meant to say prose=narrative and writing=story at least to me.


----------



## FifthView (Jul 17, 2017)

Devor said:


> On the subject, I usually use "narrative" to refer to the "prose" itself - is that the right word or am I using it wrong or is it iffy or what?



Lately, and this has been very lately, I've been thinking of "narrative" as the non-dialogue bits. I suppose that technically the dialogue is part of the narrative. But "exposition" doesn't work for the non-dialogue bits, because it's....the info-dumping or -dribbling bits, background or expository info?


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jul 17, 2017)

_Prose_ to me is the text itself. It's the words and sentences and paragraphs and how they're laid out to the reader. I'd say prose is the product of wordcrafting whereas narrative is the product of storytelling. It's very similar to just text, but there's some kind of nuance separating them that I can't quite put my finger on. 

I was going to say that prose is "the words without the content" but I think that'd be taking it a bit too far.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 17, 2017)

I'd say prose is all of it--the writing overall, and applies equally to fiction or non-fiction. Narrative is also all of it, but to me implies a story, so I'd say narrative is the prose in fiction (EDIT: so, yes, I use the terms like Devor does). Exposition is explanatory--could be an infodump if handled improperly, could just be providing information. Dialogue is part of the narrative or prose, it's just a subset of either. 

That's how I think of it, informally. If those definitions don't make sense for some reason I'm open to others.


----------



## FifthView (Jul 17, 2017)

Well now I'm thinking maybe I should distinguish between narrative and narration, and whether this is merely splitting hairs.

I've been thinking that dialogue is what the characters say, but narrative/narration is what the narrator is saying. When the narrator is also a character, he may speak in dialogue also, when he's speaking aloud. (How all this affects telepathic speech and direct thoughts...heh, hmmm.)

Anyway, this explains a little more my previous comment.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jul 17, 2017)

Devor said:


> On the subject, I usually use "narrative" to refer to the "prose" itself - is that the right word or am I using it wrong or is it iffy or what?



Hmm, narrative would work for me also.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jul 17, 2017)

If setting definitions for a discussion, you could easily set prose as the style/word choice, and then break that into dialogue (including direct thoughts) and narrative, while leaving story all to itself, LOL. This would make sense to me, actually, which might mean its a terrible idea.

But I could also see people taking narrative as the whole. Oh g'grief.



FifthView said:


> Lately, and this has been very lately, I've been thinking of "narrative" as the non-dialogue bits. I suppose that technically the dialogue is part of the narrative. But "exposition" doesn't work for the non-dialogue bits, because it's....the info-dumping or -dribbling bits, background or expository info?


----------



## Devor (Jul 17, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> I'd say prose is all of it--the writing overall, and applies equally to fiction or non-fiction. Narrative is also all of it, but to me implies a story, so I'd say narrative is the prose in fiction (EDIT: so, yes, I use the terms like Devor does). Exposition is explanatory--could be an infodump if handled improperly, could just be providing information. Dialogue is part of the narrative or prose, it's just a subset of either.
> 
> That's how I think of it, informally. If those definitions don't make sense for some reason I'm open to others.




I think I'm more confused now than ever.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jul 17, 2017)

FifthView said:


> Well now I'm thinking maybe I should distinguish between narrative and narration, and whether this is merely splitting hairs.



I would definitely distinguish between narrative and narration. Narration is what happens when no character is speaking (or thinking). Narrative is what the reader takes in when they're consuming the story.


Also - if you feel my definitions/impressions don't match what you're used to, feel free to disregard them (but also feel free to elaborate). As a non-native english speaker I'm no stranger to being wrong about what words really mean as opposed to what I feel they mean.


----------



## FifthView (Jul 17, 2017)

Demesnedenoir said:


> If setting definitions for a discussion, you could easily set prose as the style/word choice, and then break that into dialogue (including direct thoughts) and narrative, while leaving story all to itself, LOL. This would make sense to me, actually, which might mean its a terrible idea.
> 
> But I could also see people taking narrative as the whole. Oh g'grief.



Until recently, I always thought of "narrative" as the whole shebang, but also added the element that Svrtnsse mentioned. There's a storytelling element to it that separates it from mere prose, heh.

Now, as I've worked through my own confusion in this thread, I think I might use "narration" to mean the non-dialogue bits, and reserve "narrative" for the whole shebang. Heck, "narrative" in this case might be prose + narration = narrative, insofar as that added bit, a narrator narrating with narration, adds the storytelling element, maybe.

But all this does raise up the point of what term we should use when referring to the non-dialogue bits. In a critique: "Your dialogue is excellent, but the narration needs some work." Heh. Anywho.

Edit: Svrtnsse, you commented while I was writing the above, heh.


----------



## Aurora (Jul 17, 2017)

Svrtnsse said:


> I would definitely distinguish between narrative and narration. Narration is what happens when no character is speaking (or thinking). Narrative is what the reader takes in when they're consuming the story.
> 
> 
> Also - if you feel my definitions/impressions don't match what you're used to, feel free to disregard them (but also feel free to elaborate). As a non-native english speaker I'm no stranger to being wrong about what words really mean as opposed to what I feel they mean.



My mind has seriously fractured. Narration is the process of the narrative being formed. Eh? Ehhhh? *humor me please*


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jul 17, 2017)

FifthView said:


> Edit: Svrtnsse, you commented while I was writing the above, heh.



These threads move real fast sometimes - these things happen. It seems we're largely i agreement though?


----------



## FifthView (Jul 17, 2017)

Svrtnsse said:


> These threads move real fast sometimes - these things happen. It seems we're largely i agreement though?



Yes, I think so!


----------



## Gryphos (Jul 17, 2017)

FifthView said:
			
		

> Until recently, I always thought of "narrative" as the whole shebang, but also added the element that Svrtnsse mentioned. There's a storytelling element to it that separates it from mere prose, heh.



The way I see it,
Plot = the physical events that take place
Narrative = the framework, as it were, of how the events are made sense of
Story = the whole package


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jul 17, 2017)

Aurora said:


> My mind has seriously fractured. Narration is the process of the narrative being formed. Eh? Ehhhh? *humor me please*



I'm gonna take a step back here. I think FifthView put it a bit more clearly in his post right after mine. There may be others more well versed in the lingo trying to straighten this out right this very moment.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jul 17, 2017)

Aurora said:


> My mind has seriously fractured. Narration is the process of the narrative being formed. Eh? Ehhhh? *humor me please*



Right, so trying to fob it off on someone else didn't work. Let's try this now then.

Narration as I (or FV) referred to it is the parts of the story that isn't said (or thought) by any of the characters in the story. Essentially it's everything that isn't in the words of characters in the story (dialogue lines, inner monologues, etc.).

Narrative (noun) is the story as consumed by the reader.

Narrative can also be an adjective, as in: _The narration parts of the narrative are narrative._


----------



## Heliotrope (Jul 17, 2017)

Which reminds me of another term FV and I debated a while back: 

On the nose narrative. 

It was the concept of the narrative feeling "on the nose" instead of simply dialogue being "on the nose".


----------



## Aurora (Jul 17, 2017)

Svrtnsse said:


> Right, so trying to fob it off on someone else didn't work. Let's try this now then.
> 
> Narration as I (or FV) referred to it is the parts of the story that isn't said (or thought) by any of the characters in the story. Essentially it's everything that isn't in the words of characters in the story (dialogue lines, inner monologues, etc.).
> 
> ...


See, dialogue IS part of the narrative though, just created differently with a more specific purpose. Although this can get out of hand real quick.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 17, 2017)

Aurora said:


> See, dialogue IS part of the narrative though, just created differently with a more specific purpose. Although this can get out of hand real quick.



Yes. Dialogue is part of the narrative. Exposition is part of the narrative. They're both subsets of the narrative.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jul 17, 2017)

Yeah, narrative is the entire way the story is told. The way the author has chosen to present the story to the reader. This includes dialogue, plot, sentence structure, the symbols and metaphors used, how the theme is explored, the setting, the characterization.... all that stuff specifically chosen by the narrator to show the story. I'm with Aurora in that typically, when critting, I choose to crit "the narrative", not "the prose". 

Prose is the choice of words used to express "the narrative". This can either make or break "the narrative" IMO, and this is where I disagree with Aurora to an extent. Someone could have a fantastic idea for "a narrative", complete with deep themes, vivid settings, and well rounded characters, but if they have amateur prose it will not sparkle the way it could.  Bad prose will destract the reader from "the narrative".


----------



## Aurora (Jul 17, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> Someone could have a fantastic idea for "a narrative", complete with deep themes, vivid settings, and well rounded characters, but if they have amateur prose it will not sparkle the way it could.  Bad prose will destract the reader from "the narrative".


Oh I agree with you here. But my point is that story matters more and it's been the case where simpler writing with stronger storytelling shines more than well constructed prose with poor storytelling. If that makes sense.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jul 17, 2017)

Aurora said:


> Oh I agree with you here. But my point is that story matters more and it's been the case where simpler writing with stronger storytelling shines more than well constructed prose with poor storytelling. If that makes sense.



Yes. I agree here. It's a bit of a double edged sword. There really has to be a nice balance of both, good narrative (or storytelling) and good prose.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jul 17, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> Prose is the choice of words used to express "the narrative".



I think this is probably what I was trying to say when I first started rambling about prose. Thanks.


----------



## Aurora (Jul 17, 2017)

Question for the OP moderator: Will you be setting up a glossary type thread for all this then?


----------



## FifthView (Jul 17, 2017)

Aurora said:


> See, dialogue IS part of the narrative though, just created differently with a more specific purpose. Although this can get out of hand real quick.



Yeah.....

That little equation, *prose + narration = narrative*, doesn't have dialogue in it anywhere. 

And if we say narration is the non-dialogue part...well. Where does dialogue fit into that equation? Mere prose?

I do think that narration includes dialogue. Sort of.  _Bob looked at me and said, "You're bonkers."_ —the narrator is delivering the first half, but he's also delivering the second half. He's narrating what is said; it's all part of the narration.

For me personally, the question is origin. Where does the info being given originate?

In the non-dialogue parts, the info is originating from the narrator. 

In the dialogue parts, we are meant to believe that the info originates from a speaker (who may just happen to be the narrator, if he puts his own speech in quotes.) 

The info of _You're bonkers_ originates from the person known as Bob. The info, _Bob looked at me and said_, originates from the narrator.

So maybe the equation would be better written as:

*prose + narration[SUB](n+s)[/SUB] = narrative*

where

narration[SUB]n[/SUB] = info originating from the narrator
narration[SUB]s[/SUB] = info originating from a speaker

—but really, that gets too complicated, heh, and weird, and I'd rather do away with the equation altogether and simply say narration is the non-dialogue parts of narrative, just to have a word for the non-dialogue parts.

[And the above is shorthand. Do I use "info" or "content" or...? And how to consider info a narrator delivers outside dialogue but putatively originating elsewhere? With "Telling" as in, _The Bastic Chronicles mention magic swords, but I don't believe them_?]


----------



## Devor (Jul 17, 2017)

Aurora said:


> Question for the OP moderator: Will you be setting up a glossary type thread for all this then?



*Maybe.*  Right now I'm trying to figure out whether it would be useful, what it would look like, and how much work would need to go into it.  Whether we put something together or not I think the discussion itself is useful.


----------



## Aurora (Jul 17, 2017)

FifthView said:


> Yeah.....
> 
> That little equation, *prose + narration = narrative*, doesn't have dialogue in it anywhere.
> 
> ...


Ok...this is writing, not math. I hate math, which is why I write books. That's a bit whoa for me. Suppose we'll have to disagree here and it's what makes the world go 'round. Narrative, imo, includes dialogue because it's part of the story. Not sure how splitting hairs helps anyone become a better writer but maybe it's just that I can only go so far in these discussions (my head that is). :confused-sign:


----------



## FifthView (Jul 17, 2017)

Aurora said:


> Ok...this is writing, not math. I hate math, which is why I write books. That's a bit whoa for me. Suppose we'll have to disagree here and it's what makes the world go 'round. Narrative, imo, includes dialogue because it's part of the story. Not sure how splitting hairs helps anyone become a better writer but maybe it's just that I can only go so far in these discussions (my head that is). :confused-sign:



We actually agree. Narrative includes dialogue. But is narrative the same as narration? Really, it's semantics. Probably literally, in this case, heh.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jul 17, 2017)

E=MC2 where E = Overall Story Quality, M = Prose (word choice, style) and C = Story Concept. heh heh.


----------



## Aurora (Jul 17, 2017)

Demesnedenoir said:


> E=MC2 where E = Overall Story Quality, M = Prose (word choice, style) and C = Story Concept. heh heh.


:eek2: (sorry, but I've discovered the joy of the smilies here)

@Fifthview: Ah, ok then! For a second there you lost me.


----------



## FifthView (Jul 17, 2017)

Demesnedenoir said:


> E=MC2 where E = Overall Story Quality, M = Prose (word choice, style) and C = Story Concept. heh heh.



A lot of my story concepts are square.


----------



## pmmg (Jul 17, 2017)

Ill just go with whatever it seems like people are trying to say as best I can understand it.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jul 17, 2017)

Dialogue is still part of narration. 

Think about it this way. You and I are sitting at the pub having a few brews. I'm telling you (narrating) a story about something that happened to me at work. You are looking at me intently while I tell you my story... 

_We were at the staff meeting and Steven was talking about how the kids shouldn't be playing on the baseball risers, and then Judy said, "Well do you want to supervise them?" Oh my gosh she's so brave! So Steven just sort of gawked at her because he isn't about to give up his lunch break, and then he said, "we should just have them removed." I mean seriously, how stupid can you get?  _

Only in fiction we would separate the dialogue from the body text to add more white space and make it easier for the reader to identify who is "speaking", even though it is all just the narrator speaking. 

In which case you would nod and sip your beer and we would laugh about how dumb Steven is and how kids aren't allowed to do anything anymore. 

But the point is, the dialogue between Steven and Judy is part of the story. It is still being told by the narrator (me) in this situation. Steven and Judy are not there, in on our conversation, filling in the blanks. The same is true in fiction. All parts, even the dialogue, is being told to you through the "narrative" voice. It is the narrator revealing what is happening. 

So therefore dialogue is still part of narration.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jul 17, 2017)

Actually, narrative is often considered the part of fiction that is not dialogue, it simply depends on the context of the conversation. If you say narrative, you can easily mean everything, but if you discuss, say, balancing narrative and dialogue, then contextually we know the text is being broken into two pieces. This is just a case where a word can mean more than one thing to screw with our heads. Welcome to the English language, heh heh.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jul 17, 2017)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Actually, narrative is often considered the part of fiction that is not dialogue, it simply depends on the context of the conversation. If you say narrative, you can easily mean everything, but if you discuss, say, balancing narrative and dialogue, then contextually we know the text is being broken into two pieces. This is just a case where a word can mean more than one thing to screw with our heads. Welcome to the English language, heh heh.




"Good grief you are right."

*throws arms in the air in frustration*


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 17, 2017)

People can use words incorrectly, however. Narrative seems on its face to be inclusive of dialogue.


----------



## FifthView (Jul 17, 2017)

Even non-POV characters can tell a story, offer a narrative.

_Bob cleared his throat, then spoke. "I went down to the docks as you told me to do and waited until [snipping the next paragraph or three]....and that's how I ended up killing the king, sir."_

Here you have two narrators.

But take that out of dialogue and relate more or less the same info only through the narrator, and it's qualitatively different:

_Bob told me he went down to the docks as I'd ordered, and [snipping]....and that's how he ended up killing the king._

I think that putting things in quotes, making something direct speech, changes it. Is the speech still part of the whole narrative? Yes, I think so. Maybe?

But which narration?

The author's narration is the whole shebang?

The narrator's narration is only the tale he's telling, not the character's tales?

The character's narration is only the dialogue he speaks?*

Heh.

The problem is that the narrator is relating the character's tales in his narration of the story--like a parrot would. The character's speech is an objective thing in this case, like the thunder booming through the night. Or simply the prose of that speech, not the tale-telling (narration) of it.

But maybe this says something about the author's "narrative." Is the author merely delivering the prose?  Heh, maybe. Maybe the narration only happens via a narrator and characters. I think some take the view that there's always a narrator, no matter how much he may appear to be identical to the author.

*One might ask whether the speech, "Aarhg!" tells a tale, and I'd say that it probably does, just with brevity and little clarity.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jul 17, 2017)

The whole shebang belongs to the narrator. There is always a narrator, regardless of how the writer tries to disguise it. Without the narrator there is no narrative, which means no story. Nothing. The narrator is orating the entire story. All of it. All the dialogue, from every POV. All the whispers of the wind and strikes of lightning and scuttling crabs. Every single part of the story is coming from the narrator. Every single part of the story. So even when you have another character "tell a story" it is still the narrator telling how that character told that story. It is all part of the same narrative.


----------



## Devor (Jul 17, 2017)

This is genuinely all very interesting, but I don't think I'll put together a glossary just to define the word narrative.

What are some words that help you get a handle on understanding your writing?  I know there's a lot of them when it comes to story structure, for instance....


----------



## Aurora (Jul 18, 2017)

Tropes? The difference between tropes and cliches maybe?


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jul 18, 2017)

Demesnedenoir said:


> More often, I think, I've seen these called distancing verbs, or simply "distancers". Filter also, but I think distancing is really an accurate description.



I like _Distancing Verbs_ better than my term. I never cared for _filtering_ because it seems limited only to POV perceptions & doesn't apply well to sentence beginnings like "He began...". 

Distancing Verbs works for both.


----------



## skip.knox (Jul 18, 2017)

This thread demonstrates the peril. Define any term, put it in a glossary so as to create a useful resource, and you'll get eleventy dozen people arguing eleventy hundred ways it's wrong.

I think the original goal was to provide a kind of manual to the jargon that gets tossed around on the writing threads. A noble goal. I wonder, though, if it will be helpful so long as the actual members continue to use the terms in ways peculiar to themselves. The newbie would arrive, read the manual, and wonder why the discussions do not adhere, thus obviating the original goal.

I just wanted to use "obviate" in a sentence.


----------



## Devor (Jul 18, 2017)

skip.knox said:


> I think the original goal was to provide a kind of manual to the jargon that gets tossed around on the writing threads. A noble goal. I wonder, though, if it will be helpful so long as the actual members continue to use the terms in ways peculiar to themselves. The newbie would arrive, read the manual, and wonder why the discussions do not adhere, thus obviating the original goal.



No.  The goal is not to end the bickering about these things.

The goal of a jargon glossary would be to cover topics that would expand your ability to write and understand the process.  For example:

*Lampshading:* When one of the characters mentions some of the doubts a reader might have about a situation in order to let another character  address them.  Lampshading helps a reader to suspend disbelief by making their doubts a part of the story.

^ This is a little rough, but you get the idea.  Reading an entry on Lampshading helps you to learn something about writing that you could use to be a better writer.

If people then want to bicker about whether or not you can "lampshade" inside one character's internal monologue, hey, so be it.




> I just wanted to use "obviate" in a sentence.



Now that is a noble goal, indeed.


----------



## FifthView (Jul 18, 2017)

Devor said:


> No.  The goal is not to end the bickering about these things.
> 
> The goal of a jargon glossary would be to cover topics that would expand your ability to write and understand the process.



Then the entries will be something useful, functionally useful, in expanding the ability to write (process is included in that, I think.)

In this case, something like narrative might not be a great word to include in the glossary. If it's _everything_, then saying it's so doesn't clue  a writer in about the process of creating it. Same with text, prose, writing and even story, I think. These terms might help in explicating how we communicate about the things they are meant to reference, but I think that sort of thing could be left to context within the various discussions.

There's a fine line on terms like _voice_. Knowing that the term, when used by those in the industry, refers to author voice but can be modified as _character voice_ or even _narrative voice_, might help not only in clarifying discussions here but also in considering how to go about writing some aspect of a story, insofar as different choices might lead to different character voices and/or narrative voices.

Then there are all the little oddball, more specific terms and phrases like your example of lampshading. Just knowing the concept can help a writer in deciding _how_ to shape the text, prose, writing, narrative, story; or, in some of these cases (depending on how those terms are understood), what effect will be made on those things.

In that spirit, I'd nominate "Dig deeply, don’t build widely," which is a phrase I picked up from Sanderson. (In one podcast he actually says, "dig deeply rather than to build widely," although the summary in the transcript uses the first phrasing. In the podcast he intros it like this: "Sanderson’s Third Law is that a writer should expand what they already have before adding something new.") I've used this idea several times in various discussions here on MS, and I think it's a useful concept.

But there are probably lots of little tidbits like that I've picked up from the podcast. I don't know if you are looking for a broad sampling from various other writing guides/advisors/teachers/etc.


----------



## Devor (Jul 18, 2017)

FifthView said:


> In that spirit, I'd nominate "Dig deeply, don’t build widely," which is a phrase I picked up from Sanderson.



I think that would be a great entry.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jul 18, 2017)

Dig deeply, don't build widely... I can't get behind that at all. First, you need to get rid of the -ly adverbs. All and all, not that great of a saying even if the meaning is good  

Now I'll run and hide from the adverb junkies, heh heh.


----------



## Penpilot (Jul 18, 2017)

Devor said:


> On the subject, I usually use "narrative" to refer to the "prose" itself - is that the right word or am I using it wrong or is it iffy or what?



Playing catch up to this thread. Phew. 

I alway used the term narrative to be the stuff outside of dialogue and prose as the cobinination of narrative and dialogue.

To me narrative is how the story is being narrated, kind of like a voiceover in a movie. Sometimes that with the character's voice. Somtimes it's the authors. And other times it's a mixture. And to me the dialogue is kind of outside of that. 

I don't know where this opinion came from, so grain of salt.

As for the term lampshading, though I understand the term, I've heard the phrase "hang a lantern on it" used more frequently. To me it seems more appropriate. It shines a light on a story issue. When I hear lampshading, I see someone standing with a lampshade over their head, which draws attention but in a kind of silly way. But that's my nitpick.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jul 18, 2017)

Talking heads. 

That's when two or more characters stand around talking to each other for an extended amount of time with no movement, action, or body language.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jul 18, 2017)

Spotlighting. 

This is when a writer forgets to add sensory input or setting details to the scene, so it is a bit like the character is standing on an empty stage under a spotlight surrounded by a dark void of emptiness.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jul 18, 2017)

On the nose dialogue been mentioned?

Spotlight I'd call white room. I do that alot as an overreaction to my old tendency of piling on too much description, heh heh. Actually, screenwriting probably has a lot to do with that too. Huh, a new insight into m'self, LOL.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jul 18, 2017)

Chekhov's gun


----------



## Heliotrope (Jul 18, 2017)

Hellohowareyoufinethanks. 

This is when new writers add unnecessary dialogue that does nothing to move the story forward and just adds unnecessary bulk.


----------



## FifthView (Jul 18, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> Spotlighting.
> 
> This is when a writer forgets to add sensory input or setting details to the scene, so it is a bit like the character is standing on an empty stage under a spotlight surrounded by a dark void of emptiness.



I've always called that White Room Syndrome (sometimes shortened to White Room.)


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jul 18, 2017)

Could be given the shorter, spell check friendly name "real dialogue". But I love that name for it, heh heh.



Heliotrope said:


> Hellohowareyoufinethanks.
> 
> This is when new writers add unnecessary dialogue that does nothing to move the story forward and just adds unnecessary bulk.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jul 18, 2017)

FifthView said:


> I've always called that White Room Syndrome (sometimes shortened to White Room.)




Yeah, I have drama background so maybe that's where that comes from? WHite room syndrome is good too.


----------



## FifthView (Jul 18, 2017)

Then there is Maid and Butler dialogue, a subset of infodumping where two characters discuss info they both already know, wouldn't be discussing except the author wants to dump the info they are speaking.

TVTropes calls this As You Know.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jul 18, 2017)

I'm wondering about using stuff already on tv tropes... are we trying to basically rewrite tv tropes? Because they did a damn good job already.


----------



## FifthView (Jul 18, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> I'm wondering about using stuff already on tv tropes... are we trying to basically rewrite tv tropes? Because they did a damn good job already.



I don't know. I picked up Maid and Butler from listening to Writing Excuses, although I think maybe I'd encountered it in something Orson Scott Card wrote, earlier. It stuck with WE.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jul 18, 2017)

Yeah, sorry, I dont mean that. I mean what specifically are we trying to Accomplish? Because we could just copy and paste tv tropes and call it a day lol.


----------



## FifthView (Jul 18, 2017)

It's probably up to Devor. Maybe there'd be a section for all the non-TVTrope concepts, and a separate listing most commonly used (here) and/or useful TVTropes concepts.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jul 18, 2017)

Enter late. Exit early. (Not good pregnancy prevention, but great scene advice.)


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jul 18, 2017)

We've kind of wandered from the Mythic Scribes specific jargon to geenral writing/story telling jargon.


----------



## pmmg (Jul 18, 2017)

A term I use at times (though I am not sure I have had the occasion to on MS) is tag on's.

A 'tag on' extra words adding description that can easily be implied or is not needed.

She jumped through the window that was open and picked up the torch that was lying on the floor.


'That was open', and 'that was lying on the floor' are tag on's, they can be cut.


----------



## Aurora (Jul 18, 2017)

I've not heard of these terms before. Didn't even such things were...things. This thread is blowing my mind.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jul 18, 2017)

When outlining, I tend to refer to each iteration (draft) of the outline as a scratch - since I picture it like I'm scratching away on the surface to reveal the details underneath. I think it may just be me though, as I've not heard/seen anyone else using it.


----------



## Devor (Jul 18, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> I'm wondering about using stuff already on tv tropes... are we trying to basically rewrite tv tropes? Because they did a damn good job already.



Most of the stuff on tvtropes is really specific.  Putting together a glossary would be more about pulling the 5-10 things that are more versatile, and putting them together with story structure terms like "inciting incident" and writing techniques like "info-littering" into one page.

A glossary wouldn't include something like Chosen One - which is a type of character - but _might_ include Mary Sue (not really sure yet), which is a character problem writers sometimes run into.

That is, the advantage would be more about the trimmed and curated list, rather than the "new" content added to it - although insomuch as there are MS-original terms to add (waypoint writer, info-littering, etc.), that would be great.


----------



## Gurkhal (Jul 18, 2017)

The only "jargon" I can think of is that people often picks examples from their writing to illustrate a point. But that don't need to be specific for MythicScribes.


----------



## pmmg (Jul 18, 2017)

I think I would pick a piece from my own writing to illustrate cause that way I have no issues with someone thinking a comment is aimed at them.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Jul 18, 2017)

Coming in real late to this thread...

The discussion on Filter language reminded me of this recent post on literary agent Mary C. Moore's blog: Mistakes in the Slushpile: Filter Verbs ? Mary C. Moore - filter language, she says, is one of the most common mistakes she sees in the slush pile.

Narration vs Narrative: I've always considered "the narrative" as synonymous with "the story." I consider "narration" as the telling of the story. The narration includes all elements of the narrative, because what narrator, in reading the story aloud, would skip the dialogue? Can you imagine buying an audio book, narrated by Joe B. Narrator, where Joe skips all the dialogue bits? I'd ask for a refund.

But as was also pointed out, there have been plenty of discussions in the interwebs pertaining to narrative vs dialogue. In these discussions, narrative is often taken to mean the "action" of the story, the unfolding of events, as opposed to either dialogue or description. So you could have an equation of Story = Narrative + Dialogue + Description, though I'd rather think of it as Story = Action + Dialogue + Description, because I can think of that as S = ADD. 

Anyway, I think context is often required to understand what is meant when someone uses the term "narrative."

As for the word "prose," I think of it as synonymous with "style," that is, word choice, but also how those words are strung together. You can have good prose, bad prose, flowery prose, purple prose, etc. Prose does not rely on meter, rhythm, or rhyme, as opposed to poetry, which needs at least one of those three. Some prose may border on the poetic, in which case, we could leave it to the most scholarly to debate whether the prose is actually prose.

As for nominations for the glossary, I'll nominate:

Scene-Sequel
MRU

I hadn't encountered MRU before reading about it on these forums. Had missed that somehow. I'd read about scene-sequel, but found the term "sequel" in this context a bit confusing.


----------



## Russ (Jul 18, 2017)

I have always had a certain fondness for the term "vomit draft."


----------



## Devor (Jul 23, 2017)

I just noted down the about 37 terms that were listed in this thread.

I can pick up the story structure terms elsewhere.  But I noticed there weren't a lot that focused on worldbuilding. Do you have any you might add?

I was also wondering if there's a more intuitive word for something which, in creative terms, is called "integrity."  Basically it means that every piece of the creative work has to fit together as a clear identifiable whole.  But integrity has so many meanings, I'm not sure that's one people would think of. Is there a better term?


----------



## FifthView (Jul 23, 2017)

Devor said:


> I was also wondering if there's a more intuitive word for something which, in creative terms, is called "integrity."  Basically it means that every piece of the creative work has to fit together as a clear identifiable whole.  But integrity has so many meanings, I'm not sure that's one people would think of. Is there a better term?



Internal consistency?


----------



## Devor (Jul 23, 2017)

FifthView said:


> Internal consistency?



Consistency is more about not contradicting yourself.

Integrity would be more like putting things together like a jigsaw puzzle.  I thought it might be useful as worldbuilding advice.  Take the religion of the seven in Game of Thrones.  The interesting part of that is "the Stranger" which fits so perfectly with Tyrion and his character arc.  The one piece gives it integrity with the tone of the rest of the story and makes it important to the development of the characters (in the early books).

So if you're worldbuilding, the question becomes "How is this integral / add integrity" or in other ways "support" the story, the characters, the tone, and so on of your story.

But I'm not sure people would immediately respond to the word integrity that way, so I'm looking for a new term.


----------



## FifthView (Jul 24, 2017)

For me, integrity means internal consistency, insofar as what breaks integrity is something that's not internally consistent. If it is internally consistent, then it has integrity, heh.

But you seem to be looking for a word that is prescriptive rather than proscriptive in nature.

That would almost seem to me to be a combination of "Dig deeply, don’t build widely" and internal consistency.

I don't know if another word is already in use to describe that. I looked up "tying together" in an online thesaurus and found various words that might work, if I'm understanding you correctly. _Interlacing_ is a good possibility. You could maybe use a phrase instead of the word: "Make everything integral."*

*Edit: "Interlacing relevance" heh. Well, we could take this in numerous directions...



Devor said:


> Consistency is more about not contradicting yourself.
> 
> Integrity would be more like putting things together like a jigsaw puzzle.  I thought it might be useful as worldbuilding advice.  Take the religion of the seven in Game of Thrones.  The interesting part of that is "the Stranger" which fits so perfectly with Tyrion and his character arc.  The one piece gives it integrity with the tone of the rest of the story and makes it important to the development of the characters (in the early books).
> 
> ...


----------



## Helen (Aug 1, 2017)

Devor said:


> Hey Scribes,
> 
> I was wondering if there were words or phrases that you use to help you write or that might help others learn how to write a better story.  I'm referring to words like "Hook" or "Pinch Point" or "Activate Your Verbs," or possibly tropes like "Lampshade" or "McGuffin."
> 
> ...



There are tons of words. Ordinary World. New World. The list is endless. 

Generally, they all fall into the category of "craft."


----------

