Redefining Established Paranomal Beings

[Son of an Ogre]

Well, the ghouls I've got in mind act like them to a point. They're almost more like bodysnatchers in truth. However, with that said, they have the characteristics as far as they require flesh to survive (they just don't eat it). Also, they have violent tendacies--go figure. So, I think that should fit within the realm of ghoulish activity

As far as exposition...I've been writing for, oh about, eight years now. And when I say that...I mean, seriously writing. Within that time I've learned a lot. Most of it by trial and error and by reading--seeing what other authors have done under different circumstances. Like Stephen King has pointed out...if you don't read, you won't be able to write well. I believe that. Practice makes perfect--or if not that, as close to it as any of us mortals will ever get. There are numerous tricks I've seen done when it comes to releasing backstory to the reader just enough at a time to maintain their interest without giving them the farm. In fact, a lot of times I've found it just happens. You have to tune your brain into the "voice." I know that sounds strange, but it's true. Listen to what your brain is receiving from the subconcious. It'll help

[Kris_W]

*snip*
Can anyone point to some good references on how to handle exposition?

Sad truth is the best book on writing you can read is going to be about the 30th book on writing you happen to read. That’s about the point when you realize that you need to take in a multitude of different views on how to write and, from them, select those bits you need for your current project. Your best bet is to haunt used book stores and garage sales and buy every book on writing you can find. Oh, and you have to, like, read them, y’know.

That said –
Read stories that use exposition well. The short stories of O’Henry and Agatha Christi come to mind there. I’ll also add Kim Newman and Simon R. Green are good counter-examples – Brilliant books with less emphasis on exposition.

Screen writing books tend to focus on structure and are a good place to looks for the nuts and bolts of exposition. I like –
 – Screenwriter’s Bible by David Trottier
 – Save the Cat by Blake Snyder

Books on editing tend to cover exposition well
 – The Elements of Editing by Arthur Plotnik
 – Simple & Direct by Jacques Barzun

Don’t sweat the exposition during your first draft. The exposition is one of those things easiest to work on in third or fourth drafts because you won’t know what the reader needs to know until you have the whole shape of the story down. In fact, much of your best exposition work will be written in response to editing letters after your book is sold.

Best of luck!

[Darwinist]

Using your own argument, you are not Greek and JB is not Greek, so why is lycanthrope acceptable?

Using your own argument, you are not German and JB is not German, so why is 'hexenwulf' acceptable?

I am not calling you ignorant, I am calling you inconsistent within your own terms.

I'm not sure of the proper term here, it's in the same vein as 'cacophony'. The sounding of the two words together LOOP GAR-OO sounded out, sounds childish and like babble-speak. It's hard to put faith behind the word, to really fear it. There isn't enough harshness to the sound of the word like the other two. That is why the other two are more widely used and more widely accepted. Try it sometime, mention all three words to a random lay person and see which one they prefer and which one they find disjointed to the genre. There is no hard sound in the word, so it does not agitate the reader into picking up on it, fearing it, symbolizing it. It just sounds goofy. LOOP GAR-OO. /cringe.

From a personal standpoint, since you seem to care for some reason...  lycanthrope and hexenwulf seem appropriate in my mind. They are established terms I've heard of, understand, and can visualize. Though 'LYCAN' by itself is an awful term also.

There's enough information in there to tell you what a loup-garou is in the context of the story, Jim lets you know what you need to know.  You don't need the French derivation to make sense of what's going on, so I don't see where your complaint is coming from .  (Which is a different point from calling you a dumb parochial monoglot for not knowing any French.)

I do read medical journals, and it is kind of notable that some terms get defined precisely in the context of the paper, and others are established uses within the field, because a new journal article is not the same thing as a basic text of the field and it is reasonable to assume that people interested in one are already familiar with the other; critiquing a research article for not being an introductory text is missing the point.

At no point did I say I didn't know WHAT a loup-garou is. Jim, as you point out, paints that picture vividly. I merely said it was a stupid sounding term. Like Jackalope or the word Neurovore. It just sounds idiotic, like its trying too hard and failing miserably. Someone then mentioned that I should know what it means simply because its a French word. I countered that I don't speak French, I am American... reading an AMERICAN book. At which point that person promptly surrendered. However someone else decided to call me ignorant. I'm betting it was the part where I said I was American, they just visualized the stereotype... Go figure. Hey, did you know French people don't shave their arm pits? Yours, or someone else's, complaint was that it is an established term in the genre. My response is that the argument is crap. I do not read the genre, I was only exposed to it because it was part of the Dresdenverse that I do enjoy reading. So your argument is that I am an ignorant monoglot just because I do not read the same things you do. When addressed with a complaint, you feel compelled for name calling. How mature.

Tard.

/never said I was mature, either.

[Darwinist]

Sorry about the thread hi-jack Ogre. Back to topic...

Aside from reading books on writing or reading books based around the theme of your story... only thing I can recommend is an education. Not to put that in a negative way. I've learned A LOT in the last couple of years in college. Especially this term. I have this snotty, satirical, mean spirited teacher. PERFECT for learning from in the writing aspect. The urge to pacify and placate that person's tastes takes over. The writing becomes more personal, tighter. You just want to write the greatest thing ever and shove it in his face. Naturally, he'll still hate it and always will - because that is his style. He pushes you to do that much better.

Not to mention, you get weekly exercises that really focus on the different aspects of writing that really bring out things in your writing that needed work. Like for me... was metaphors, imagery, and setting the scene. I never really paid close attention to painting an image of the background. I always focused on the foreground, what the story was doing and not how the scene is progressing based on elements around it. Made for some real two dimensional material. Took a lot of practice, trial and error, but my stuff is a lot more well rounded now. It took taking these classes to realize this flaw. And getting slammed weekly by this evil bastard teacher is what drove me to excel.

Now, on the flip side, community college writing courses were a waste. Just basic Creative Writing 101 junk. No direction, no ambition, worthless. But University level courses were outstanding. Form and Technique of Fiction... Narration Description. Great courses, both of them. I highly recommend both. I'm sure there are others that are great, but these are the two I've taken thus far. Hope that helps.

[meg_evonne]

In writing, 'tis the knowledge of the teacher, not where they teach that makes a great class to take.

I'm taking a class with some incredible writers, who aren't sci fi readers.  Initially, their comments were "how does that work?" type variety. And i would, "huh?" Assume nothing and describe all.  See other posting here to do it in an entertaining way.

I'm using a time travel device.  I created it and I described it, but from the wonderful sci fi writer was the Star Trek concern---"aren't you afraid they will change the time line?"  UHm, yeah,great question.  I've been using without thought the Crichton Time Line and more realistic in my opinion to assume.  About ten inventers invent the same device at the same time usually--but only one gets the Kudos.  Killing one off isn't going to change a thing.  Another is already there and ready to go.   

So, I need to go back and explain that--dang it!  :-)  Thank goodness for readers who will actually ask you questions and call you on something you missed doing!

[Starbeam]

The sounding of the two words together LOOP GAR-OO sounded out, sounds childish and like babble-speak.

loup-garou (pronounced /lugaˈru/) Derived from Latin lupus(wolf) and possibly Old French garoul(werewolf). 

[sarafina]

The sounding of the two words together LOOP GAR-OO sounded out, sounds childish and like babble-speak. It's hard to put faith behind the word, to really fear it. There isn't enough harshness to the sound of the word like the other two. That is why the other two are more widely used and more widely accepted.   It just sounds goofy. LOOP GAR-OO. /cringe.

You're right, it does sound goofy. Yet another reason I like France and the French. Also, I believe the term is used down in Louisiana, where the French heritage is stronger. I don't know if Quebecois uses the term, Shecky might know.

[comprex]

You're right, it does sound goofy.

Honestly, 'lycanthrope' sounds even goofier, like some anglophone prat showing off daddy's first-year-Greek dictionary before they even went to language class.

[sarafina]

Honestly, 'lycanthrope' sounds even goofier, like some anglophone prat showing off daddy's first-year-Greek dictionary before they even went to language class.

I don't like 'lycanthrope', to me it's too unwieldy with too many hard (as in rocklike, not difficult) sounds. Also, I may have read to many LKH books. Loup-garou flows, like one could break into a yodel down the road:

"When I'm calling you-ooo-ooo-ooo'
Dooby-dooby-doo, with my loup-garou..."

But 'lycan' was referenced by Castle last night FTW.
 

[Son of an Ogre]

Me actually being of French heritage...I personally like Loup-Garou. If I were to have werewolves in my stories, I'd go with it. lol

[comprex]

As I am of none of the heritages above, can I hold all three in contempt as superstitions  derived from western insecurities ? 

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

I'm not sure of the proper term here, it's in the same vein as 'cacophony'. The sounding of the two words together LOOP GAR-OO sounded out, sounds childish and like babble-speak. It's hard to put faith behind the word, to really fear it. There isn't enough harshness to the sound of the word like the other two.

The p is silent, French being a language in which terminal consonants are nigh-always silent.

I think lou'-garou has a kind of wind-in-branches menace like the word Cthulhu, myself.

Try it sometime, mention all three words to a random lay person and see which one they prefer and which one they find disjointed to the genre. There is no hard sound in the word, so it does not agitate the reader into picking up on it, fearing it, symbolizing it. It just sounds goofy.

That is the sort of reaction that does sound parochial and monoglot to me, i'm afraid.

They are established terms I've heard of, understand, and can visualize.

There is a sample bias going on here in what you are familiar with, then. 

Assuming that Jim, or any of his other readers, will have the same sample bias and therefore the same reactions and prejudices with response to this word is totally unwarranted.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

I don't like 'lycanthrope', to me it's too unwieldy with too many hard (as in rocklike, not difficult) sounds. Also, I may have read to many LKH books. Loup-garou flows, like one could break into a yodel down the road:
"When I'm calling you-ooo-ooo-ooo'
Dooby-dooby-doo, with my loup-garou..."
But 'lycan' was referenced by Castle last night FTW.

"Relp, Raggy, it's a roogaroo !"

[Noey]

Considering how many variants on shapeshifter that JB has included, it seems reasonable to me that he'd go with synonyms to classify the different types. Loup garou is another synonym, and actually is one of my favorites because it rolls off the tongue a little like the sound of a howl. It's evocative to me, so to each to their own.

As for ghouls, I vote go for it. In White Wolf's Vampire: The Masquerade, ghouls were actually humans that were kept as servants to vampires. No flesh eating involved, but the association that the reader brought with them helped create a certain dark association. The echoes of cannibalism resonated to me, even if it wasn't present in the text. It sounds like your ghouls have similar traits, in that they don't actually consume flesh, but with the body switching, they kind of do. I personally groove on details like that in fiction. Redefining old legends is most of the fun in urban fantasy, I think. Heck, it actually adds to the realism. Having a character say things like, "And I bet Mama told you that stakes work on vampires, too," makes things seem more plausible, because it's like gathering the readers together, and whispering secrets about how things really work. People, in my experience, eat that kind of thing up. Everyone likes being in on how it really goes down, even if they know it's just a book.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

Having a character say things like, "And I bet Mama told you that stakes work on vampires, too," makes things seem more plausible, because it's like gathering the readers together, and whispering secrets about how things really work.

i'm sure I've read a vampire ranting at a human on a "Well, if someone shoved a sharp piece of wood through your heart it wouldn't do you much good, would it ?" theme, but I can't recall where.  (The "look what you did to my good shirt" aside in Anno Dracula is not it, but in the same general theme.)