Books vs Ebooks or, What is a Book?

I often see things on Pinterest, and various writing or book websites, that bring up the infamous "debate" over the books-versus-e-readers.

I put "debate" in quotation marks, because I have rarely seen what could be called a fair debate. Most people approach the the issue from the standpoint that "Real books are better than Kindle/ebooks. Period. Exclamation mark." Then they might be really clever and have a list of all the "good things" about a Kindle. And then say that despite all that, "real books" are infinitely better than ebooks because they look, feel, and smell like books.

Now, I approach this issue as a person who has read countless "real books" and few electronic books. I don't own a Kindle, but I do have a couple of friends who have. So I believe that I can be a fair judge of the issue.

In this post, I'm not really going to do a pros and cons list, like so many websites have already done. Rather, I have one question? What is a book? Does the word "book" mean a "real book", on paper, or does it mean the story that is contained either with ink or electronic pictures of letters? It is a real question.

If someone asked me, "Have you read Corgi Critter's Conquests?" I would know right away that that means, "Have you read this certain book?" And if I had read it in a "real book", or on a Kindle, or online as long as I had read those words, I could truthfully say that I had read it.

This is a love of books for the sole reason that they are not electronic. Or that is at least how I see it.

Maybe these same purists would say that writing should be done on typewriters, or by hand. These days, that is probably not practical. I sometimes struggle to understand this whole hatred of technology that some people seem to have. I mean, take video games, for example. Many parents love to hate on video games. But if a kid is playing an intellectually-stimulating online game, then why is that worse than play any other non-active game? And if the video game is pointless and ridiculous,  that is no worse than playing Candy Land  or Sorry or Trouble, right? Or any other roll-the-dice or draw-the-cards game.

OK, that doesn't have much to do with books. I just hate games of pure chance.

But back to books. You know, I have been reading a book and thought "Ohhhh, this smells so good!" Maybe I'm just not observant of such things, or many it's because I've had little contact with books that are either especially new or old. But I have reveled in the smell of many a DVD case. Sad, when I think about it.

And I don't love the feel of a book. I mean, it's a book. It's just like the way things are. Paper with words on it.

I've seen a lot of PBS documentaries in my life time. If there is ever a topic like "What is the smartest animal?" or "Is there life on another planet?" then there is usually fifty minutes talking about that question. And then a disappointing ending saying, basically "we don't know" or "maybe, maybe not." That's kind of how this blog post feels to me.

So my opinion is that it is not the medium that counts in books, but the content. A good story is good whether there is paper or electronics behind the words. It's just words.

Note: I also don't sympathize with the people who literally use the word "murder" to describe ruining a book. Comments on Pinterest are commonly in this direction. A lamp made with old books is "senseless murder." A hollowed-out Harry Potter, used to hide small objects, is a horrible thing! And any picture or art project with a written-on book is evil.

Books are just books.

Arguably

On occasion, I shall post here about words that are often used incorrectly. One such word is the adverb "arguably." This simple word is probably misused more often than not. Once I started noticing this misuse, I have never stopped.

Consider the following sentence:

"Arguably, the new law will be beneficial to all of the citizens."

That "arguably" is misused there! "Arguably" DOES NOT mean "probably"! I see it used like that, and hear it used like that all the time. Arguably means that a point can be argued about. Simple as that.

"The Brady Bunch is arguably the best show to ever appear on television."

Most people would agree that The Brady Bunch is not the greatest show ever. That's why it's just rated 6.7/10 on IMBD. But the sentence is completely true, because "arguably" does not mean that something is true! You get someone that loves it, and someone that hates it, and you can argue about it.

Any point is arguable, though there are some facts that rational people do not argue about.

Here's an alternative term: unarguably. But still, as I just said, irrational people might argue about an seemingly unarguable thing.

I close with a quote. (RJB, if you are reading this you know what this is from.) It's a silly quote, but it explains the correct use of the term.

"[Holly] was arguably the most beautiful one in the whole family. Arguably meaning that she argued about it."

Why I Time My Typing

I have been doing a strange thing during my typing time the last few days.

I set a timer, usually for just a minute or two, and then type as fast as I can before the timer goes off.

It is almost as irritating to the other people in my house as is my fast typing (more on that in another post). And no one in my family has figured out why I do it. 

So this post is for them.

A lot of the time, when I am writing, I pause. I let my mind wander, ponder a spelling or character name, or just stop because I can't think of what comes next. Though I have the ability to write a thousand words in about fifteen minutes, it often stretches to thirty minutes when I'm not careful. All those pauses do add up during a typing period. 

That is the point of the timer idea, one that I think I came up with during last year's NaNoWriMo.

To start a session, I go to this website and set the timer. I have been working on just one minute, but now I'm up to two. I also add two or three extra seconds to the timer, so that I don't lose time. Then I go to this website, turn on the timer, and start writing. 

The great thing about this approach is that at the top of the page I can see the tab for the timer. I can see the seconds ticking down. And I register that in my brain as I write. At the bottom of the page, I can watch my word count going up. Watching the timer and word count and the text I'm actually typing, all at the same time, might sound like it would be distracting.

But it isn't. It helps me to type faster, like it's a race, or something. If you are running in a race, and can't see the other people in it, then you might not feel as competitive. But if you see the other people racing against you, and know if they are getting ahead of you, than it is an extra encouragement to go faster. And so it is with typing. 

After the timer goes off, I fix the typos and copy and paste into Scrivener. Then I restart the time and get back writing.

The only flaw to this, other than annoying my family, is that it is an exhausting thing to write a thousand words this way. It can be painful for the wrists and fingers, and you have heard thousands of keystrokes in rapid succession. I actually feel tired after doing many of those "sprints" and I long to just go to Scrivener and write slower. So a thousand words of speed typing, and I normally am done. Either I consider my writing session over, or I switch to Scrivener. 

After I improve more at speed, and can write like this consistently, I'll go back to doing most of my writing directly in Scrivener. This stage of my writing will not last long, I promise. 

Especially since Scrivener is so much more relaxing. 

Scrivener

My apologies if this post sounds like an advertisement. I assure you, I am not getting paid to write this, or anything like that. But if I was getting paid, I would have no problem with that.

Scrivener is basically a word processor, but the most advanced one that you can imagine. (Note: I'm using the Windows version. The Mac version has more features.) It has made writing a novel so much easier, and even more fun. The only downside of the software is the price: $40 for Windows. There are various discounts, though, which are on the Scrivener website. 

I'll use a few screenshots to outline how the Scrivener writing process works. [The sample novel is not one that I am working on.]

The screenshots below document the highlights, but there are hundreds of different functions. For example, each chapter can be marked with one of five labels, one of six statuses, and one of dozens of icons. You can split the screen, look up words, generate random names, add images and graphs, compare different versions, and automatically fix spelling errors. I've used Scrivener every day for over a month, and I'm still discovering new things that I can do with it.

As you can see, there are various templates available. Or you could use a blank project.

You can make an outline by chapters, by scenes, or with both. 

Each scene or chapter is saved as a "card." The cards can be moved around, marked, and written on. 

It's fun to watch these bars fill up! 

You can make "character" cards for all your characters, places, or whatever you want. My real novel has "Characters" and "Places and Concepts." 

Scrivener provides character and setting templates to fill out. Handy if you have a lot of characters or complicated settings.

This is where the real action happens. 

This is fullscreen mode. It helps me avoid distractions while I work. You can have the background be black, faded, or a personal picture, like this strange one.

Ethel Morton and the Christmas Ship, by Mabell S. C. Smith [part 3 of 3]

Here is the last badly-written section that I will critique in these posts:

"I wish she could grow as plump as Della Watkins."

"I saw Tom Watkins yesterday," said James.

"What was a haughty New Yorker doing on the Jersey side of the Hudson?"

"It seems he boards Cupid and his family at the Rosemont Kennels—you know they're half way between here and Glen Point. He was going to call on them."

"Dear Cupid!" laughed Margaret, recalling the bulldog's alarming face which ill agreed with his mild name and general behavior. "Let's go over to the Kennels and see him some day."

"His wife is named Psyche," went on James, "and they have two pups named Amor and Amorette."

"I should think Cupid's puppy would be the funniest little animal on earth," roared Roger. "Never, never shall I forget the day old Cupe ran away with his market wagon," and he kicked his legs with enthusiasm.

 Look at that third sentence of the last quotation. Another information dump, this time in miniature. That is not how people talk in real life! And if it is not how people talk in real life, it has no place in realistic fiction. Tom comes back into the story later, so it would not be hard to show that he is haughty. Show, don't tell. That's the advice that all good writers give.  A normal person would say, I suppose, "What was he doing there?" 

Right after that, there's more unnecessary information! (No surprise there.) Why does the reader need to know the name of the kennels where a yet-unknown character boards his dogs? We still don't know much of anything about the four children sitting on the porch! And we still don't know about the immediate family of most of the cast. But we do know the names of a family of four bulldogs. 

Well, I could go on and on about this book. But I will close with one more thought: it bothers me that two of the characters are named Ethel Blue Morton* and Ethel Brown Morton. It does, however, raise an interesting question-- which Ethel is the eponymous one? Or is it both? I'd probably know if I read the whole book.** But I don't want to.

* Interestingly, there is a substance called methyl blue, a stain.

**Or "all the books in the series." I was disturbed to discover that there are at least five books in the Ethel Morton series. 

Ethel Morton and the Christmas Ship, by Mabell S. C. Smith [part 2 of 3]

I will begin this second part of the review with the second sentence of EM.

James and Margaret had trolleyed over to see Roger and Helen from Glen Point, about three quarters of an hour's ride from Rosemont where the Mortons lived.

OK, that's not a terrible sentence. But, honestly, we know nothing important about these characters yet. Yes, we have that first long sentence, which tells a lot. But none of the information makes any difference in this part of the novel. Do we need to know, in the first two sentences of a novel, where two of the characters live, where two other characters live, and where they met?

"Roger's ready to admit it," confessed that young man.

If we ignore that awkward speech tag, it's not bad. But the next sentence is so terrible. It was painful to read.

 "When you have an aunt drop right down on your door mat, so to speak, after your family has been hunting her for twenty years, and when you find that you've been knowing her daughter, your own cousin, pretty well for two months it does make the regular go-to-school life that you and I used to lead look quite prosy."

Not only is that sentence too long, but it is even more confusing than the first sentence. This is an information dump, people. That means that too much information is given at the beginning of a story. There are many ways to introduce backstory in a novel. It's hard to think of a worse method than the one employee here: to have someone tell a friend about it in one long sentence. All right, there is one worse way-- to have Roger start by saying, "as you know..." before the dump.

And now is the time to talk about speech tags. You know "he said", "she said". Don't use them if you can avoid it, and, when you do, you should almost always use either "said" or "asked." I know all the arguments. That it's boring, repetitive, not descriptive enough. For the majority of my life I have been over-using speech tags. What caused me to stop? The general consensus of "real" writers is that it brands a writer as amateur and is annoying to read. 

Here is my little list of speech tags and things used as speech tags (names mostly excluded for brevity and convenience) from this 2100-word chapter, in the order in which they appear.* 

decided, confessed. suggested, concluded, said, went on, continued, carried on the story, guessed, said, and Roger nodded his head gleefully, said, remarked, said, laughed recalling the bulldog's alarming face which ill agreed with his mild name and general behavior, went on, roared, and he kicked his legs with enthusiasm, asked, said, suggested, approved, assented, James completed the sentence for her, a voice came through the screen door, declared, responded seriously, commented, asserted suddenly, interposed quickly, explained to the new arrivals, approved, inquired, announced, asked, commended, quoted, sighed, agreed, decided, commented, retorted, threatened, said somewhat sharply, begged, continued, exclaimed, defended her idea, retorted, said magnanimously, retorted
Wow. I didn't count the number of different speech tags, but feel free to do so and tell me. 

Apart from the tags, we learn about an aunt, an uncle, and a grandfather, but there is little about the people who I assumed to be main characters. The dialogue also just feels awkward to me. But the worst part is the randomness of what they say. And the introduction of more and more characters. known mostly by name alone, when there is no character development of the main characters.

 In the first chapter!

*That should be a colon, not a period, but I didn't want to make any of the sentences I wrote in this post longer than the quotations! If you don't count the paragraph where I listed the speech tags, I think I succeeded.

Ethel Morton and the Christmas Ship, by Mabell S. C. Smith [part 1 of 3]

This is a book review post. Normally, people choose books that they enjoyed to review. I have chosen a book that I don't like. At all. It is an old book, and you've probably never heard of it. My mother recommended it to me, saying that she remembered it fondly from her childhood. Well, sorry, Mom, but I couldn't even bring myself to finish it. Or do more than barely get started.

Lest you start complaining that I can't review a book that I haven't even read, I will say that I agree. That should be a rule, but I am making an exception. Sadly, I am afraid that the writing is far from exceptional. (By which I mean "exceptionally good.") Take this not as a review of the book itself, as in the plot, but about what not to do. What turned me off from it right away.

And now, the review begins.

Well, not yet. First a disclaimer: this book is in the public domain (as far as I can tell) as it was written in the thirties, and all the content is available on Project Gutenberg. And my apologies to the author.

A book should grab you at the beginning. The first sentences are often called a "hook", as they, if properly written, draw the reader, like a fish on a line, into the world and characters of the book. Sadly, in Ethel Morton, this is just not the case. The first few paragraphs are so badly written that my twelve-year-old brother laughed when I read it two him. Hysterically. He knows about all these mistakes, and only uses them satirically. 

"It's up to Roger Morton to admit that there's real, true romance in the world after all," decided Margaret Hancock as she sat on the Mortons' porch one afternoon a few days after school had opened in the September following the summer when the Mortons and Hancocks had met for the first time at Chautauqua. 

Did you check back to see that that is one sentence? Did you count the words? I did! The first sentence of EM is fifty-six words long and terribly convoluted. There are some long sentences, in good writing, that are clear, that work well. But those are rare. And it is not the case this time.

Let's have a look at all that we are told in this first sentence.

1. The full names of two characters: Roger Morton, Margaret Hancock
2. That they are sitting on the Morton's porch
3. It is a September afternoon
4. It is a few days after the first day of school
5. That the Mortons and Hancocks had met the previous summer
6. That they met at Chautauque

Does the reader need to know all this, and Margaret's comment, in the first sentence of a novel? I don't think so. But it gets worse, as you will see in the next two posts.

Names

In my current main WIP*, I have a lot of characters. And each one that plays any real role in the story has a name. Although it was not hard for me to name the MCs*, the more minor characters were much more difficult. Here's a few of my names for minor characters: *****, 8888, and ()))). Lest you think that I have either pioneered a new motif in writing, or that I am using the lack of names in a deeply symbolic manner, I'll tell you that those are not their "real" names. Their real names have not been found yet.

Why didn't I just name them things like "Steve", "Angie", or "Moronica" and be done with it? You know the answer to that--names should not just be chosen randomly. [Random-name generators?  I'll talk about those in a future post. They do have their place!]                 

In fiction writing, one of the most important--and most difficult--things is giving names to your characters. Good names are crucial to writing successfully. And as a carefully-chosen name will make your readers enjoy your story a lot more, a badly-chosen name will annoy your readers at best.

This is my personal criteria for choosing a good name in fiction writing:

1. The name should not lend itself well to puns and jokes. I'm thinking of "Peeta" specifically here, but I know that this is a problem in other stories as well. A name like that is just begging to be made fun of! I do not mean that original names are bad. I love original names. But not silly names.
2. The name should be original. That doesn't necessarily mean it should be strange, but consider giving at least one character a name that your readers will remember. The writing of Charles Dickens is an excellent example of this. If you have read any of his novels (or seen TV versions of them) you know what I'm talking about. 
3. The name should fit the character--or maybe it shouldn't, for the sake of irony. Again, Charles Dickens did an amazing job of this with his names. By choosing names with the character in mind, rather than just making a list of names and picking one, the name will seem much more fitting. 

I would like to say that, in fiction, names are second only to plot in importance. But I don't know about that. The important elements of a novel are Plot, Names, Tense, Narration, and Genre. Notice the capital letters? That's to hint at another element, the time in which it is written. Old British novels, at least, use a lot more capital letters than modern novels. (From my limited observations.)

All this is to say one thing: that good, carefully-choosen names are of extreme importance in fiction.

* In the near future, I will post a list of such terms.