CHERYL’S WINNERS!

 

Thank you all so much for coming by today and reading and commenting. Our readers are the heart of Petticoats and Pistols, and we appreciate you all! 

 

My winners today are…KARIJEAN AND JUDY SEXTON!

 

If you ladies will send me an email at fabkat_edit@yahoo.com, and put WINNER in the subject line, that will be great! Just let me know which of my digital books you’d like to have  and provide me with the email address you’d like it sent to and I’ll see that it ships out to you as soon as possible. 

 

Thanks again so much for making this a fun blog post! I love hearing from you all!

THE DEVIL’S IN THE DETAILS #4–CONAGHER AND CINDERELLA (AND A GIVEAWAY!) by CHERYL PIERSON

 

Have you ever read a story that made you wonder why the author spent such a long, boring time describing an item or place that seemed of little importance to the story?

Usually when that happens, it’s because its importance will be revealed later on, or some scene will call up that particular memory or description for some reason—and its usually a pretty darn good reason!

Let’s look at Cinderella’s slipper as our first example for this. Of course, a glass slipper would be highly unusual, wouldn’t it? In fact, most likely, there would be no other slippers like that one pair!

This particular pair of shoes serves as a symbol for the entire story—improbable things happening to a young woman who has been treated so terribly for so long that lead to her ultimate happiness—it’s a story we can all relate to!

The magic that brings her happiness is not just going to the ball and all the wonderful things that happened on the way—the beautiful gown, the carriage, and so on—the true magic for Cinderella is falling in love. And how can the two lovers hope to be reunited? Well, if it weren’t for those exquisitely, perfectly-fitting glass slippers, everything else that came before—all the magic, hopes, and dreams—could have amounted to nothing at all. Everything hinges on the glass slipper fitting!

Hence the description of the slippers themselves, carrying the slipper on a pillow (which I always believed was taking a terrible chance!) and the endless search and trying on of the slipper throughout the kingdom.

The slipper is all-important because it is the proof that she is “the one” –and it has come to symbolize the very story itself. when we see a picture of the glass slipper, we know it “means” Cinderella, right?

 

Think about Lous L’Amour’s iconic western, Conagher. Two lonely people meet and fall in love through heartfelt notes that Evie, the heroine, writes and ties to tumbleweeds. They could be found and read by anyone—or no one at all.

 

 

HERE’S THE LINK FOR CONAGHER AT AMAZON!

But the fact that Conagher feels they speak directly to him, shows us how important what she did is to the story. This is further borne out when, in conversation with him, she uses a phrase she’s written on one of the notes—and he knows immediately it is she who has been writing them.

 

Loneliness and the vast emptiness of the land is a common theme throughout the book. It was unimaginable to her that Conagher would be the one who found “that note” – the one she repeated the phrase from in conversation with him—but it wasn’t impossible. And his line to her is one of the most romantic of all time, in my opinion.

 

He takes one of the notes out of his pocket and asks if she wrote it, and she says yes, she did. She tells him she was just so lonely she had to talk to someone, even if no one was there to hear. He says, “There was, Evie, there was me.”

 

The details of:

  • The land around them and their feelings about the emptiness and aloneness of where they are…
  • Evie’s acting on those feelings by just writing them down on paper and tying them to tumbleweeds…
  • The act of Evie repeating the phrase in conversation she’d used on the note Conagher found…

all add up to make this story so special and memorable—and one you will not want to put down once you start reading!

Conagher isn’t a fairy tale, but it does have its own brand of magical connections that lead to love. The details and descriptions in both of these stories, as different as they are, give the reader insights that the author, in both cases, was masterful in providing throughout the story!

 

Finally, another couple of tales that come to mind are two short stories many of us read in our high school English classes—The Necklace, by Guy De Maupassant, and The Gift of the Magi, by O. Henry. Do you remember these—both based on objects that were described in great detail—and the twists at the end that left you gasping in surprise?

 

If you haven’t read them, or even if it’s been a while, they are always good to revisit and are classic examples of why detailed descriptions of “things” can be so important to a story’s premise.

Can you think of an example in your reading where the detailed description of something had deep importance to the story? What was the first short story you can remember LIKING to read and study in high school? I’m giving away a digital copy of one of my books to two lucky commenters, (USA) your choice! 

Cheryl’s Amazon Author Page

CHERYL’S WINNERS!

A big shout out to everyone who stopped by today to read and comment on my blog post about details in description of settings! I enjoyed so much hearing about places you’ve been that made a lasting impression on you! I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, you all, our readers, are the heart and soul of our P&P group and we love you all! 

I picked three winners today! THEY ARE…(DRUMROLL PLEASE….) SARAH GUNTER, JULIE DAHL, TRACY DELEGAL

 

If you ladies will please email me at fabkat_edit@yahoo.com and put WINNER in the subject line so I’ll be sure and see it, you can let me know which digital copy of a book of mine you’d like to have, and  please be sure and confirm your email address you want the book sent to. Thanks again to everyone who stopped by!

THE DEVIL’S IN THE DETAILS #3–SETTING (AND A GIVEAWAY!) by Cheryl Pierson

 

Are you a reader who loves descriptions and details of settings? Glittering ballrooms, the bone-chilling cold of a winter in the Rockies…or maybe the oppressive, killing heat of the desert? What about something idyllic, like a river or creek babbling through the woods? A beautiful rose garden, or even the ugly side of description—such as barren prison walls, or a Civil War battlefield?

A beautiful Oklahoma sunset!

It depends on the story, doesn’t it, and again, how much importance those descriptions have on the impact of the action, and the outcome of the story.

Here’s a setting to make you wonder…what’s going on here?

 

But let’s use a ball as our example.

If you’ve never been to an 1800’s ball—and none of us have—we need to know at least the barest details.

Five basic things we need to know are:
What is a ball?
Why is the ball being given?
Who will be invited?
When will the ball be given?
Where will it be held?

That’s enough for some stories. But the main question is—how important is the ball to the plot?

This is where layering comes in—and this one scene, and the details it contains—can be vital to what comes next, or even many scenes later.
So many things can happen at a ball!

Guests can meet for the first time, uninvited guests can show up, clothing can have significance, music can bring back memories, the food can even be poisoned!

Or, the ball can just be a ball, like the old saying attributed to Sigmund Freud, “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar…” –and if that’s the case, then tedious description and intricate detail is wasted because the ball is just a vehicle to get from one scene in the story to the next, and has no real underlying importance.

 


Describing the details of the clothing worn is sometimes distracting as it pulls us away from the action. We may be reading about a blue satin gown when we need to be concentrating on the man who lurks in the shadows. Too much description can bog down the reader, and deaden the story, rather than bring it to life.

Why? Because deep description of the things such as décor, clothing, and meals stop the action of the characters. The plot “takes a break” while our minds process all of the description of the scenery, the meals, the clothing. In this case, again, sometimes, “less is more” and we need to let the reader’s mind fill in much of that kind of detail.

Consider this: We know certain facts—a ball costs a lot of money to host. So we already understand that those who are invited are most likely people who move in the same upper crust social circles. Therefore, we know they, too, have money, so are appropriately dressed, arrive in style, and are schooled in proper societal customs. One excellent way to cut through the “red tape” of description (of things we already know) is to describe something that is out of place, or “not right” as this reminds us of what should be—and those details of descriptions we’re already aware of.

Perhaps an impostor at the ball commits a social faux pas without realizing it, alerting others to the fact she isn’t who she pretends to be. Maybe an unlikely hero comes to her aid quickly, offering an excuse, or correcting the mistake before others notice.


This scenario does several things for the story that simple description can’t achieve.

1. Points out the discrepancy in what should be and what is.
2. Allows our characters interaction, and possibly dialogue and observation, rather than the author filling the page with scenic description.
3. Allows the reader the opportunity to learn more about the characters and their personalities through this interaction, and can be a vehicle to reveal something of importance.
4. Can possibly (and hopefully!) further the action during such a scene rather than slowing it by miles of scenic description.

This is not to say that there isn’t a time and a place for detailed descriptions of settings! We can’t call ourselves authors and take the “easy” way out by saying, “It was a ball like any other” by way of description, unless—we put it in the right context.

How about this: 
Jake looked around at the opulent ballroom –the surroundings were familiar in a tiresome, cloying way. Or…maybe was jaded. It was a ball like any other—except for one thing. Something that made him catch his breath and inwardly let go a streak of curses he’d love to shout to the skies. She was here. The woman he’d thought he’d never see again…

Well, anything can happen now, can’t it? Maybe she’s wearing an inappropriate shade of red amidst a sea of violet and blue. There are so many ways to make setting come alive without endless description that many readers become bored with and skim over.

If you read my last installment of this blog series about main characters, the examples I used from Shane (Jack Schaefer) and St. Agnes’ Stand (Tom Eidson) are also prime examples of description of setting as well as character.

But here’s another good one I really think is wonderful from Conagher, by Louis L’Amour. In this story, Evie from “back East” has come out west to marry a man with two children. Evie tries to make the best of things, but she lives in fear, at first. The land is so different, After she’s been there a while, she finds there is a beauty in her surroundings she had to grow to love, in time.


As L’Amour describes the heroine’s (Evie) dismal hopelessness at the land her husband (Jacob) has brought her to, we wonder how she will survive. Yet, Jacob has plans, sees the possibilities that Evie cannot, or will not see. The underlying message is, “The land is what we make of it.”

As the story continues, she begins to appreciate the beauty of the prairie, while acknowledging the solitary loneliness of her existence. She plants a garden, nurturing the plants, and gradually she sees the farm being shaped into a good home from the ramshackle place she’d first laid eyes on.

The land is beautiful, but unforgiving. Her husband is killed in a freak accident, and for months she doesn’t know what has happened to him. She faces the responsibility of raising his two young children from a previous marriage, alone.

In her loneliness, she begins to write notes describing her feelings and ties them to tumbleweeds. The wind scatters the notes and tumbleweeds across the prairie. Conagher, a loner, begins to wonder who could be writing them, and slowly comes to believe that whomever it is, these notes are meant for him.

At one point, visitors come from back East. One of them says to Evie something to the effect of “I don’t know how you can stand it here.”
This is Evie’s response to her:

“I love it here,” she said suddenly. “I think there is something here, something more than all you see and feel…it’s in the wind.

“Oh, it is very hard!” she went on. “I miss women to talk to, I miss the things we had back East–the band concerts, the dances. The only time when we see anyone is like now, when the stage comes. But you do not know what music is until you have heard the wind in the cedars, or the far-off wind in the pines. Someday I am going to get on a horse and ride out there”–she pointed toward the wide grass before them–”until I can see the other side…if there is another side.”

The land, at first her nemesis, has become not only a friend, but a soulmate. L’Amour gives us this description through Evie’s eyes and feelings, not in writing about it from his perspective as the author.

Think of your own writing projects, and books you’ve read. What importance do you give setting in description, plot, even characterization? Within 40 pages of ‘Conagher’, we understand that the land, with all its wild beauty and dangers has become enmeshed in Evie’s character. She can’t leave it, and it will never leave her.

Endless, detailed description can’t do what L’Amour does through Evie’s eyes in a very few sentences.

Do you have a favorite description of a setting you’ve read about, or written about? Or is there a place in your heart that you’ll never forget because of it’s beauty, or maybe the opposite? Be sure to leave a comment! I’m offering a giveaway today of one of my books in Kindle, readers choice, USA only. We love to hear from our readers!

CLICK HERE FOR GREAT READING!   CHERYL’S AMAZON AUTHOR PAGE

CHERYL’S WINNERS!

 

Ladies, thank you all for coming by the blog today and taking part in our discussion on details about characters! I love a great discussion like this and you all are the heart of our group with your participation and love of reading!

 

I chose two winners today, and they are….RACHEL and DENISE!  If you two will email me at fabkat_edit@yahoo.com and let me know which book you’d like to receive, I’ll get it off to you ASAP! Be sure to include the email address you’d like me to have KINDLE deliver the book to and put WINNER in the subject line so I can find you quickly!

 

Thanks again so much for such a fun day today at the blog–I thoroughly enjoyed it!

 

~Cheryl

THE DEVIL’S IN THE DETAILS #2–MAIN CHARACTERS (AND A GIVEAWAY!) by Cheryl Pierson

Are you the kind of reader who likes to have a detailed description of the hero or heroine in romance books? What about other secondary characters? And do you feel the same way about characters in books of genres other than western historical romance, or romance in general?

To me, there is a big difference in how much character description is needed in romance novels versus other genres, and here’s why.

When we read romance, we put ourselves in the story, empathizing with both the heroine and the hero. Of course, we need enough description to let us be familiar with them both, but this might be a case of “less” being “more.”

In our personal lives, we have preferences in how our romantic “leading men” look, speak, behave, and so on. If our preferences are toward the tall, dark, and handsome hero, it will be hard for us to be vested in a story with a hero who perhaps doesn’t have those traits. Or one who has habits we personally don’t find attractive. (Just as an aside, I notice from watching the original Perry Mason reruns that EVERYONE has a cigarette in their hand–everyone except Della Street, that is. Seeing this series that was shot during those years soon after the stories were written, you realize what a different time that was in our society.)

 

But back to our character descriptions in the books we read. I knew a woman who didn’t like blond heroes. If he had blond hair on the cover, she’d color it brown or black with a marker. In the book, if “blond” was mentioned, she’d mark through it and write whatever color of hair she’d decided he needed. I asked her about the heroines. “They’re all me,” she answered. “I don’t pay attention to their descriptions.” It made me wonder how many other readers felt this way. By the way, I used this cover pictured below, GOLDEN NIGHTS by Christine Monson, to illustrate the blond hero–those are sometimes hard to find. This story was a fabulous study in character development and how it all contributes to the entire workings of the plot from start to finish. IT’S NOT A SWEET STORY–much grittier, but the writing, descriptions, and plot were unbelievably detailed and worked perfectly to create a very interesting love story.

Stephen King had mentioned at one time in his book ON WRITING that “description begins in the writer’s imagination, but should finish in the reader’s.”

And in genres other than romance, character description is different–and maybe more important–because the reader doesn’t have any preconceived expectations of the story, such as romance readers do.

When I taught creative writing classes, this description of King’s was one I used to illustrate how so much could be packed in to a short amount of words without being an info dump.

AMAZON LINK FOR ON WRITING BY STEPHEN KING

https://www.amazon.com/Writing-King-Stephen-Paperback/dp/B00NYI71B6/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=on+writing+by+stephen+king&qid=1551361053&s=books&sr=1-2https%3A%2F%2Famzn.to%2F2BWlIin&tag=pettpist-20

 

 

This is the beginning of St. Agnes’ Stand, by Thomas Eidson, who also wrote The Missing, which was a very successful movie. Take a look:

He was hurt and riding cautiously. Thoughts not quite grasped made him uneasy, and he listened for an errant sound in the hot wind. His eyes were narrowed—searching for a broken leaf, a freshly turned rock, anything from which he could make some sense ofhis vague uneasiness. Nothing. The desert seemed right, but wasn’t somehow. He turned in the saddle and looked behind him. A tumbleweed was bouncing in front of the wild assaults from the wind. But the trail was empty. He turned back and sat, listening.

Over six feet and carrying two hundred pounds, Nat Swanson didn’t disturb easy, but this morning he was edgy. His hat brim was pulled low, casting his face in shadow. The intense heat and the wind were playing with the air, making it warp and shimmer over the land. He forced himself to peer through it, knowing he wouldn’t get a second chance if he missed a sheen off sweating skin or the straight line of a gun barrel among branches.

And then this, a couple of paragraphs down:

He had been running for a week, and he was light on sleep and heavy on dust and too ready for trouble. He’d killed a man in a West Texas town he’d forgotten the name of—over a woman whose name he’d never known. He hadn’t wanted the woman or the killing. Nor had he wanted the hole in his thigh. What he did want was to get to California, and that’s where he was headed. Buttoned in his shirt pocket was a deed for a Santa Barbara ranch. Perhaps a younger man would have run longer and harder before turning to fight and maybe die; but Nat Swanson was thirty-five years that summer, old for the trail, and he had run as far as he was going to run.

I absolutely love this. Can you feel that you’re right there with Nat Swanson as he’s riding? There are no wasted words, and this is just such an eloquent, masterful description of not only Nat, but the situation and the physical place he’s in as well as the dilemma he’s faced with.

AMAZON LINK FOR ST. AGNES’ STAND BY TOM EIDSON

https://www.amazon.com/St-Agnes-Stand-Tom-Eidson/dp/039913915X/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=St.+Agnes%27+Stand&qid=1551360200&s=gateway&sr=8-1%22%3E%3C%2Fa%3E&tag=pettpist-20

 

Another excellent way of describing a character and setting the scene at the same time is from another character’s POV. This passage is from Jack Schaefer’s iconic classic, Shane—from the eyes of Bobby Starrett—when Shane first rides into his life.

This is just the very beginning of the book—there is more physical description of Shane a few paragraphs later, but I chose this passage because it lets us know what’s going on in a few short sentences—and that is real talent.

He rode into our valley in the summer of ’89. I was a kid then, barely topping the backboard of father’s old chuck-wagon. I was on the upper rail of our small corral, soaking in the late afternoon sun, when I saw him far down the road where it swung into the valley from the open plain beyond.

In that clear Wyoming air I could see him plainly, though he was still several miles away. There seemed nothing remarkable about him, just another stray horseman riding up the road toward the cluster of frame buildings that was our town. Then I saw a pair of cowhands, loping past him, stop and stare after him with a curious intentness.

He came steadily on, straight through the town without slackening pace, until he reached the fork a half-mile below our place. One branch turned left across the river ford and on to Luke Fletcher’s big spread. The other bore ahead along the right bank where we homesteaders had pegged our claims in a row up the valley. He hesitated briefly, studying the choice, and moved again steadily on our side.

This is tough, because we’re seeing it through two “lenses”—Bobby is nine years old, and this is what he sees, but it’s filtered by the adult Bobby who’s now telling the story of what happened all those years ago.

In writing the story this way, the reader gets the full impact of experiencing the fears, the situation brings, the joy of having Shane there, and the anguish of his leaving all through the eyes of a nine-year-old boy, with the adult overview that lets us know that Shane was not a hero—but he was to Bobby and those small time settlers who needed one so desperately. Yet, leaving was the only thing he could have done and kept Bobby’s view of him untarnished and intact.

Because we don’t know how the story will end, and we don’t know what to expect, we are learning about Shane’s character right along with Bobby so we are actively looking for details and descriptors the author might give us along the way—it will affect our opinion of Shane and let us know if Bobby is a reliable narrator, and it affects the outcome of the story.

I bring this up because in romance, seldom does the description have such a direct effect on the story itself, unless our main characters have scars, afflictions, or disabilities that might have some direct bearing on the story and its outcome.

AMAZON LINK FOR SHANE BY JACK SCHAEFER

https://www.amazon.com/Shane-Jack-Schaefer/dp/0544239474/ref=pd_sbs_14_1/139-0197056-7135558?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0544239474&pd_rd_r=9d5675f9-3b5c-11e9-9aed-c3a00bddb282&pd_rd_w=rNyT6&pd_rd_wg=6hIg6&pf_rd_p=588939de-d3f8-42f1-a3d8-d556eae5797d&pf_rd_r=9AADKSXSE65C5026WN56&psc=1&refRID=9AADKSXSE65C5026WN56%22%3E%3C%2Fa%3Ehttps%3A%2F%2Famzn.to%2F2T4bXZU&tag=pettpist-20

 

My burning question for today is,  what do YOU  think? Do you like a lot of description and detail about the WHR heroes and heroines you read about, or would you rather “fill in the blanks” for yourself? Who are some of your favorite characters in books you’ve read–any genre! Be sure to leave a comment–I’m giving away a digital copy of any one of my stories! If you live in the USA and love to read, this just might be your lucky day!  

As far as heroines go, most people I’ve talked to are not as concerned with her physical description (maybe because each person sees herself in the heroine?) but are more concerned with her personality traits—is she likable? Is she determined?

If she is not a fierce match for the hero, the story line is doomed.

And what about our hero? Though he can get away with more “questionable” traits, he has to be endowed with almost superhuman strength to overcome everything that’s thrown his way, and that is description that must be thoroughly detailed—not left to the reader’s interpretation.

Thanks so much for stopping by today! 

AMAZON AUTHOR PAGE:  https://www.amazon.com/stores/Cheryl-Pierson/author/B002JV8GUE?ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1&qid=1784406438&sr=8-1&shoppingPortalEnabled=true&ccs_id=e567b82c-b83a-4686-9694-d23369e884bf&tag=pettpist-20

 

CHERYL’S WINNERS!

 

I want to thank everyone who stopped by the blog today and commented! I thoroughly enjoyed your comments and learning about your pet peeves when it comes to too much detail (or other related things we talked about!)

My winners of the digital copy of LOVE UNDER FIRE are….

LINDA R

KATE SPARKS

Congratulations, ladies! If you will email me at your earliest convenience here: fabkat_edit@ yahoo . com (NO SPACES) I will see that your prize is sent as soon as possible! Be sure to put WINNER in the subject line, and also please let me know the email you wish to use to receive your book.

Thanks again to each and every one of you for stopping by and reading and commenting. Our readers are the heart of our blog–we couldn’t do it without you!

THE DEVIL’S IN THE DETAILS–PART ONE by Cheryl Pierson (AND A GIVEAWAY!)

There’s an old saying that “the devil’s in the details” that’s true in many circumstances in life, but I think it’s especially true in all forms of art.

Of course, it’s obvious to us in visual art—paintings, drawings, photography—and tactile art such as a beautiful quilt or piece of pottery, or a woven basket.Hexagon Quilt–selling for over $6000! But look at the work and the detail that went into this “work of art”!

But what about books? Are you a reader who loves lots of descriptive details? Or do those bog you down and leave you frustrated and impatient?

I have to admit, as I’ve gotten older, there are many kinds of stories that I feel could do with less detail in some areas. A lot of my “changes” come from looking at the way details and descriptions are presented more closely when I read. I’ve evolved into this kind of reader.

As a younger reader, I needed those details to help me create images in my mind. The descriptions were beautiful to me because I knew less of the world, and everything I read was a learning experience! Have you ever thought about it like that?

When I was a YA reader, whether reading sci-fi books (during the flying saucer craze) or historical fiction, I needed those descriptions and details to feed my hunger for learning about—well, everything!I loved this series by John Christopher–read it when I was about 12 or 13, and it stayed with me all through the years so that when my own kids were young, I went searching and found it for them! The descriptions of the aliens that were determined to take over earth, the bravery of the young people that fought against them, and wondering what in the world was going to happen kept me reading far into the night! (and them, too!)

“Back in the day” I think authors engaged readers with a different type of writing style, too. Ours had not yet become a world of technology such as it is now. Life “took longer”—and happened at a much more unhurried pace. It was important for writers to create pictures in the readers’ minds—because there was no way to already have a pre-conceived idea of the things the author was trying to describe.

Here’s what I mean: In today’s world, we are inundated with images of all kinds, from instant pictures on our phones that we take ourselves, to movies, to ads on television, to video on Youtube. And now we have a prevalent presence of AI in everything we come into contact with. There is just so much more—and we are experiencing only the tip of the iceberg.

One of my very favorite paintings by the most fabulous Jack Sorenson. He does it the old fashioned way–brush stroke by wonderful brushstroke!  This one is called “Horse With Christmas Spirit”–love the “details” in this one!

Can you see how out lightning speed technology can potentially de-value art? When a beautiful picture can be photoshopped together in minutes, or even created by AI and seen by millions, or mass produced in ways that hadn’t been thought of fifty years ago, the artist who painstakingly delivers every brush stroke “the old-fashioned way” can be under-appreciated in a hurry! Jack Sorenson is one of the most gifted artists BECAUSE of the details he includes in every painting.

Some writers suffer this same twist of fate with the influx of technological inventions in a different way. Because our lives are so rushed, and our society has been geared toward “quick reads” we’ve lost the pleasure of savoring those descriptions of the setting, the characters, even the emotions of the “players” in the books we read. It seems that finishing a book is more important than, as we once did, lingering over certain passages and re-reading them for the sheer joy of the way the words came together, our imaginations taking flight with  the mental pictures they created for our hungry minds—and souls.

My confession—and you may all think this is weird—I do not ever skim. Even when I don’t feel the need for the minutiae that may be included, I read every word. What if I miss something? Deep down, I believe the author must have thought it important or he/she wouldn’t have included it!

What’s your pet peeve? Too much description? Not enough? More description needed of the characters? Or do you want some things left to your own imagination?

One does a whole painting for one peach and people think just the opposite – that particular peach is but a detail.

–Pablo Picasso

I learned no detail was too small. It was all about the details.

–Brad Grey

Sometimes when you start losing detail, whether it’s in music or in life, something as small as failing to be polite, you start to lose substance.

–Benny Goodman

Do you remember a book you’ve read that you thought was too detailed? IS there such a thing? I think many of the authors from the earlier days wrote in that style—it was just how it was done—and there was no mass media to show instant pictures, so there was even so much more to learn through reading.

As one who wrote very descriptive passages, James Fenimore Cooper comes to mind, but Diana Gabaldon’s books are full of wonderful descriptions of the landscape, the characters, and so on, and that skill she displays for description makes her stories and characters come to life!

For modern-day books that show a complete mastery of adding wonderful detail and pulling you into the story, there is no better author than Kathleen Eagle. I’ve never read a story by her that I didn’t love and one of the main reasons is the adept talent she has for adding the smallest details as the story moves along and drawing the reader right into each and every scene, as if you are truly there with her characters, experiencing their pain, loss, worry, and love.

I love to do giveaways, so here’s my question for today’s blog for you to answer in order to enter the giveaway. I’m giving a digital copy of LOVE UNDER FIRE from our Petticoats & Pistols Pink Pistol series  to two commenters today! (USA ONLY) Do you have a favorite author who gives just the right amount of description? Is there an author you feel could do with a little less of it?

More about this next time on CHARACTER descriptions–I’ve been doing a lot of thinking on this subject!

COME VISIT MY AMAZON PAGE–CLICK THE LINK BELOW!

 https://tinyurl.com/yc6t7vj4

CHERYL’S WINNERS ARE…

 

Hi everyone! I wanted to thank everyone for stopping by today and joining in the fun discussion of mondegreens on the blog. Those are so funny and just crack me up every time. 

 

I chose two winners today, and they are…

 

KAREN JENNINGS and CONNIE LEE!

 

If you ladies will email me at fabkat_edit@yahoo.com and include WINNER in the subject line,  just let me know the title of the digital copy of the book you’d like to receive and also please verify the email address where you would like it sent (some people have different email address for that than the one they use for correspondence.)  I will get your prizes off to you as soon as possible!

 

Again, thanks to everyone for chiming in and playing along!

WHAT IN THE WORLD IS A MONDEGREEN? AND A GIVEAWAY by Cheryl Pierson

I had posted this a few years back, but reading through it made me laugh all over again, and I’d forgotten so many of the mistaken words and phrases in Dr. Barber’s link. I just had to share it again. I’m so fascinated with the English language, and the “ins and outs” of it. They say laughter is the best medicine, and boy, this sure made me laugh all over again, and brought back some great memories.

I know you are wondering–just what IS a mondegreen? Mondegreen is a word that means the mishearing of a popular phrase or song lyric. (BOY, have I been there many times!)

I found this information and a wonderful list of Mondegreens on Dr. Michael Barber’s link on the web.  Here’s what he has to say about the origin of the word Mondegreen.

The word Mondegreen, meaning a mishearing of a popular phrase or song lyric, was coined by the writer Sylvia Wright.

As a child she had heard the Scottish ballad “The Bonny Earl of Murray” and had believed that one stanza went like this:

Ye Highlands and Ye Lowlands

Oh where hae you been?

They hae slay the Earl of Murray,

 And Lady Mondegreen.

Poor Lady Mondegreen, thought Sylvia Wright. A tragic heroine dying with her liege; how poetic. When it turned out, some years later, that what they had actually done was slay the Earl of Murray and lay him on the green, Wright was so distraught by the sudden disappearance of her heroine that she memorialized her with a neologism.

I have never heard of a Mondegreen before just about three days ago, and then, in the space of those three days, I saw it used twice in internet postings. I had to find out exactly what it was.

We’ve all done this, haven’t we? We want to sing along but we aren’t sure of the lyrics so we just…sing what it sounds like, even though it might not make the best sense. Later, we find out what we were singing was, well, not right, and didn’t make the best sense, as we’d always thought!

I’ll go first. When I was about 8, the James Bond movie Thunderball came out. The theme song was sung by Tom Jones.  Here’s the verse I always sang wrong:

He knows the meaning of success,
his needs are more so he gives less,
they call him the winner who takes all,
and he strikes like Thunderball.

Well, in my defense, I was 8 years old and what I actually sang made sense to ME: Instead of “they call him the winner who takes all” I sang, “the cold in the winter who takes all”—see? Perfect sense! Summer days were gone.

When Garth Brooks’ song Shameless came out, my sister and I happened to be talking on the phone one day about music and she said, “There is one song I don’t get. That song by Garth Brooks… “SHAVING”—why is he singing about shaving?”  I thought she was putting me on, but no. She really thought he was singing SHAVING instead of SHAMELESS.

My mom told me one time that when she was young, she and her sisters would go buy a Hit Parade magazine and gather round the radio listening to the “hits”, hoping they were in their magazine. They’d find it quickly in the magazine and try to memorize the lyrics along with the music. But there was one song that had some Spanish words in it and they just had to try to mimic the sounds, because none of them had a clue about Spanish, and I’m guessing that even if that song was included in the magazine, there would have been very little chance they’d have figured out the pronunciation on their own. I said, “Weren’t you embarrassed to be singing the wrong words?” She said, “No, because no one else could do any better.” HA! I have laughed and laughed about that through the years. The problem with a Mondegreen in another language is there are so many possibilities of what you might accidentally be singing about.

Here is a fun partial list of some Mondegreens you might recognize. For the full list, go to Dr. Barber’s page here: https://uh.edu/~mbarber/mondegreens.html

The artist is Elton John (Rocket Man), the Mondegreen is:  Rocket man, burning all the trees off every lawn. The actual words are: Rocket man, burning out his fuse up here alone.

The artist is Don Henley (Boys of Summer). The Mondegreen is: after the poison summer has gone. The actual words are: after the boys of summer have gone.

How about Fleetwood Mac’s “Dreams”? Mondegreen is: when the rainbow shaves you clean you’ll know. Actual words are: when the rain washes you clean you’ll know.

And here’s a good one too, from Creedence Clearwater Revival’s Bad Moon Rising. The Mondegreen is a choice this time, with: There’s a bathroom on the right, OR There’s a baboon on the rise. Of course, it’s actually There’s a bad moon on the rise.

What about you? Do you have a Mondegreen to share with us today? Leave a comment for a chance to win a digital  copy of any of my books or my latest story LANDON — your choice!  Now, don’t be shy–tell us a mondegreen you’ve used, or that someone else has said that made you giggle. I really do love these!

CHERYL’S AMAZON AUTHOR PAGE: https://tinyurl.com/yc6t7vj4

Petticoats & Pistols