|
Post by account_disabled on Dec 4, 2023 23:39:23 GMT -6
I want to start with an excerpt from a story that I'm finishing and which will be released next Tuesday. "Then he's mute." "Can be." “Write his questions down on a piece of paper.” "What?" «Write them down. If you don't hear..." Don't you notice anything strange? To me, even after a few readings, it sounded good. Yet there is an error and a big one too, so much so that I changed it with this version: "Then he's deaf." "Can be." “Write his questions down on a piece of paper.” "What?" «Write them down. If you don't hear..." It is not necessarily the case that someone who is mute is also deaf. And in any case "mute" is someone who cannot speak, not someone who cannot hear. The Phone Number Data character in question didn't speak, it's true, but we don't know why. Writing your questions to him is the most suitable solution, whether he doesn't speak or he doesn't hear. There are details that escape us, because even when we write, we are still reasoning in a "colloquial" way, with a language filled with clichés and sayings that we have acquired and that help us to remember and connect. The problem is that those clichés don't always work, they aren't always correct. Reading over time Many people say it, but we often lack the main factor: time. But rereading a story a month after we wrote it brings out all the flaws in that story. I realize it when I reread my stories after months and I wonder if that sentence couldn't have been written in another way, if that incipit is strong enough, if the story isn't leaking all over the place. True writing is knowing that you don't know how to write.
|
|