Writtenwyrdd

The writer's life

A couple of days ago, Sylvia commented with an hilarious link where cats quoted Charlie Sheen.  I found a great post by the author, Francesco Marciuliano (author of the Sally Forth strip), on the writer's life.  He's talking about writing comic strips, but I think it could easily apply to us all. 

The only flaw?  He omits mention of coffee!

Which brings me to the topic:  What do you do that makes you live a "writer's life"? 

A professor I had in college (where I took in all but name a creative writing minor) stated once that you are only a writer when you are writing.  I submit that in a certain sense that is true...but what is the life of a writer, and what does that writer do in between spates of writing?  Isn't it logical that life fills the void between the moments when you are writing? 

Because, if we feel we are writers, want to be writers, or are already paid professionals in the field in some manner, there should be some distinctive flair or habit or prevalent whatever, right?  (Okay, play along with me here anyhow.)  If we have something that defines us as writers besides the actual production of prose, what is the life that we are leading that makes us distinctively living the "writer's life"?  Is there a stereotypical writer's life that doesn't borrow from Hemingway and a fifth of bourbon or involve gay Paris and beret-wearing mimes smoking unfiltered Turkish cigarettes and drinking coffee in a bistro or absinthe at the cabaret?

Play with the idea a bit and look at your own life.  Where do you show your writerly nature to the world?  In your decor, choice of abode, your hobbies, your haunts, your friends?  Seriously, look at your life and what you've built around yourself and see how those things in your life reflect your writing habit/career.  It could be little superstitious rituals.  Purchasing habits.  Hobbies.  How you describe yourself to others.  What I'm really asking you to do is to look at the activities that are not related to actual writing or the settling in to write but which you feel define you as a writer.

For myself, I have a thing for goofy tee shirts.  A lot of my shirts have amusing comments about being a writer, and it makes me feel like a writer because the shirt says so.  It's a form of label, marking me to the world...or at least marking me to me! 

And I surround myself with office supplies.  Blank post its, reams of paper, bound books, art paper--you name it, I likely have some of it lurking, forgotten, in the office area.  For some reason, I feel like the creative potential in a blank page is incredibly powerful for me. 

Then there's my leisure time.  I am unable to actually do this because my location and job (the Job That Ate My Life) prevents it.  But, given the opportunity, I'd hang out in bistros or organic coffee shops; I used to do that in San Francisco, and I wish I could do so all the time. I also used to dress rather Bohemian, which made me feel all hip and cool and stuff.  Though, just shy of 50 now, it's not exactly a look or trend that would win points any longer, so, like the coffee shop hanging out in, it's all a wish, not an actual thing I can or will do.  But that still defines me to myself.

So...what is it you do that makes you feel like a writer in the mundane existence outside of actually penning the Great American Novel?

Listen to that nagging little voice

What is the current issue that is sitting in the back of your head as you are writing this NaNoWriMo project? By that, I mean what keeps nagging at you, be it "how to fit in this cool idea," "what's with that character doing X?" or "Damn, I'm running out of plot, what do I do now?"

What is nagging at you?

I guarantee you guys, if a thing keeps coming up like that, you need to pay attention to it.

Write it down, then think about what your thought/idea is trying to tell you. See if you are possibly heading down the wrong road in the story, or look at what the problem is and make notes as to how you can fix it in edits.

If it's something that makes you realize you have a problem, strike through the parts you know you will have to delete later (but do not delete them now!) and make notes for what you think you will be replacing that section with. (For example, MAKE PROTAG MEET CONFLICT HERE INSTEAD, DECIDES TO GO LEFT INSTEAD OF RIGHT, BRINGING HER TO SUBCHAR2 WHO PROVIDES INFO FOR SUBPLOT A WHICH ALSO GIVES PROTAG [IDEA] WHICH DETERMINES APPROACH TO MAIN CONFLICT.)

But, whatever you do, DO NOT go back and rewrite the scenes you decide must go. That way leads endless revising. (I know; it is my typical ADD must-neaten-all-edges-and-fix-all-grammar-issues habit I constantly struggle with.)

So, listen to that little voice that's nagging at you.  It's your muse/subconscious/higher self/what have you telling you that there is something that you need to attend to.  You are smarter than your conscious mind will allow.  All you have to do is practice paying attention.

Listen to that nagging little voice and save yourself some headaches down the line. 

 

If you run out of plot

Seems like everyone has an idea where they want to end up when they begin a scene, story, chapter. It may be a vague image of novel's ending, of some purpose the character wants to accomplish, or a love scene where two of your characters end up together. But you likely have an idea of some scene or event that will be happening later on in the story.

If you run out of plot, here's a great tip: Write anything you pictured happening. Even better, write that particular scene that inspires you to write toward it, such as that great love scene.

It's okay to jump about in time. You can write scenes out of order. What you write may not be a keeper; it may change when you get all caught up.  But it's something you can write to get you moving again when you just don't know what happens next.

So long as you keep on writing, it's all good for NaNo.

Resonance vs. Symbolism (repost)

This is a repost from 10/7/2007

"I enjoy discovering symbols and meaning when it is subtle and serves completely the needs of the story." Charles Gramlich

Above I quoted Charles' wonderfully evocative post on resonance versus symbolism. I recommend reading the comments as much as his post, too.

The basic point, that he prefers "works that lack overt symbolism but still create a sense of resonance in the reader," is a good one. I, for one, cannot stand to be battered about the head and shoulders by theme, concepts, or symbols that are too blatant.

Layers upon layers.I've stated my opinion about themes on several occasions, but Charles' post reminds me that symbolism also can be too blatant in the exact same way as themes can. Symbols are not story, they are underpinnings, the layer of enrichment that can be found in really good writing. They are a part of the world building, and they are also a part of the elements that can enrich a tale with meaning that grips the reader. But done too blatantly, they are just as off-putting as reading a novel that continually gives a moral or social message with the subtlety of a battering ram.

Writing is like poetry in that the good stuff usually has layers of meaning. Symbolism, the choice of words, their sound, arrangement and flow, all form a layer that reaches the reader in a more subconscious fashion than the overt tale you are trying to convey.

Unless you overdo it. Then you have called attention to it and disrupted the flow of the story and made your reader aware of the mechanics involved.

If a symbol or theme is blatant, it is best left out of the story.I believe this because I believe an author's favorite pulpit material and favorite symbols, while potentially useful, can also be overused to the point of being offputting to readers if they call attention to themselves by being too blatant or ham-handed. They must add to the story you are trying to tell or they should be recognized as crutches we writers use and cut. Might as well treat these bits like algebera and insert some Greek letter in lieu of the symbol, because overdone, it has about that much meaning and value.

Of course (she says tongue in cheek) if we got rid of some of the classic yet overused symbols-- like the Scarlet Letter A-- what would we have to toss as a bone to our high school English teachers? Ack! The mind boggles.!

Poetry as a teaching tool

"Theodore Roethke said that "Form is not regarded as a neat mould to be filled, but rather as a sieve to catch certain kinds of material", which seems to me one of the most profoundly true statements about art anyone's ever made, and why people who think that it's not poetry unless it rhymes and scans, and it is poetry if it does, are so wrong: they're mistaking the sieve for the meal. But traditional poetic forms are very clear, well-proportioned sieves."  Emma Darwin on her blog, This Itch Of Writing

It is my firm belief that, more than any other teaching tool, poetry can teach a writer how to use the language well.   

But one of the tendencies of those not too familiar with poetry and its myriad forms is to presume iambic pentameter or other unsubtle (and, in my opinion, rather sledge hammer-like) rhyming schemes are what defines that genre.  And if that's what you think makes poetry, I can see why you might scoff at my premise. 

Poetry, however, is a distillation of language.  It takes a lot of know-how and understanding of the underpinnings of word meaning and the interplay of sound and texture and even what the words look like on the page.  It's painting with words, but painting that lays the brush strokes in the reader's mind to evoke all the senses. 

As that's something we seek to do in great prose writing, it behooves we writers to learn something about this ancient form. 

Ask.com has a rather good definition:

One of the most definable characteristics of the poetic form is economy of language. [my emphasis]  Poets are miserly and unrelentingly critical in the way they dole out words to a page. Carefully selecting words for conciseness and clarity is standard, even for writers of prose, but poets go well beyond this, considering a word's emotive qualities, its musical value, its spacing, and yes, even its spacial relationship to the page. The poet, through innovation in both word choice and form, seemingly rends significance from thin air.

Economy of language... Yep, that's pretty much it in a nutshell, and you can see how learning to hone your writing ability in that regard can be an invaluable tool for the prose writer.

And, if nothing else, discovering poetry will open your eyes to a vast body of literature.  And training your poetic ear really is a great tool for your writerly toolbox.

Poetry links.

Sites about poetry:
Poets.org Lots of information and links here.
Dmoz' list of poetry organizations.  Rather comprehensive.

Information on poetry forms: 
51 Poetry forms
Wikipedia's poetry forms page, which has well over 200 links to varying poetry articles
Poetry Base/ Poetry Gnosis: A Resource for Learning & Teaching Poetry 

Miscellaney:
The Pose Poem defined.  Prose poetry is an interesting cross between prose and poetry in that it has the sensibility of poetry and the structural rules (more or less) of regular writing. 

Poets I particularly like:
Robert Frost
Mekeel McBride 
Billy Collins
Langston Hughes
Shakespeare
Brian Turner

Why speculative fiction is important

"One reason that I think science fiction is an important literary genre, particularly in the third world, is that it is a safe genre.  It is the only genre that allows us to see the darkness of our past in way that also allows us to disengage from it.  Science fiction deals with both the present and the past without actually being there, which means that we, as readers, can choose to remove ourselves from the present (as influenced by the past) and "escape" into an unknown future.  Yes, science fiction is often allegorical, but it doesn't have to be read as such; there's no requirement to put the pieces of the past together.  With general literature, there is, since it is often planted immediately in the moment, whether that be in the present, or the past.  Reading general literature is like reading about ourselves as we are now; it's reading about people that weren't in situations that were.  Science fiction is the antithesis to this because it allows readers to get away." SMD, from his blog

"To oppose something is to maintain it." Ursula K. Le Guin

If you've been reading speculative fiction (horror, science fiction, paranormal romance, or fantasy) in its many varieties of subgenre, you likely have heard your preferred reading material denigrated as not being 'real' writing.  Snobby types don't feel that genre writing in general (romance, mystery, etc.) is literature, but there seems to be an even greater trend to put spec fic into the box of Only The Simple-Minded Go Here.

I suppose that there is also a line of thinking-- due to the fantastic ourpouring of primarily tween/teen adoration and cash that are the juggernauts of Harry Potter and Twilight-- that if it's spec fic it's not literature because it's YA. 

Gah.  Good writing is good writing.  And there are many writers out there whose work qualifies as classics.   *cough* LeGuin *cough* Delany *cough* Herbert *cough* 

And, like SMD mentions, the truths we bring to light in science fiction and fantasy are the truths that can be examined free of our inherent prejudices, in a safe zone where the ideas can be extrapolated for good or ill.  Particularly in dystopian futures or in urban fantasies where monsters represent the worst of humanity, the allegorical nature of speculative fiction lends itself to the discussion [by allusion] of the human condition! 

That inherent flexibility of the genre is what drives it, and, frankly, I'm really stymied as to why critics keep presuming, over and over, that spec fic is for children adn that its plots and themes are juvenile when in fact they are touching upon deep, deep issues.

In keeping with the second quote above, though, I believe we writers and readers of speculative fiction will have the last laugh by just keeping on as we have been, talking about things that don't exist and thereby reflecting important issues of the human condition. 

But, really, vampires, wizards, talking horses, rocket ships, slime-covered aliens and flying monkeys are here to stay...because they're cool. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Miscellaneous Great quotes on spec fic

• Review: Tove Jansson — The True Deceiver A Review by Ursula K. Le Guin. First published in The Guardian, 12/12/2009 
"On the patronising assumption that books for children are nice, i.e. morally bland and stylistically infantile, critics, reviewers, and prize juries often dismiss those who write them as incapable of writing seriously for adults." [excerpted from Ms. LeGuin's web site.]

• Ray Bradbury "There still are people who will come up to you and say: "Science Fiction? Ha! Why read that?!" The most direct, off-putting reply is: Science fiction is the most important fiction ever invented by writers. It saw a whole mob of troubles pouring toward us across the shoals of time and cried, "Head for the hills, the dam is broke!" But no one listened. Now, people have pricked up their ears, and opened their eyes." (Ray Bradbury, From "Science Fiction") [found here.]
• Ray Bradbury "Science-fiction is the law-abiding citizen of imaginative literature, obeying the rules, be they physical, social, or psychological, keeping regular hours, eating punctual meals; predictable, certain, sure. Fantasy, on the other hand, is criminal. Each fantasy assaults and breaks a particular law; the crime being hidden by the author's felicitous thought and style which cover the body before blood is seen. Science-fiction works hand-in-glove with the universe. Fantasy cracks it down the middle, turns it wrong-side-out, dissolves it to invisibility, walks men through its walls, and fetches incredible circuses to town with sea-serpent, medusa, and chimera displacing zebra, ape, and armadillo. Science-fiction balances you on the cliff. Fantasy shoves you off."  [From the introduction to The Circus of Doctor Lau.  Found here.]
• Terry Pratchett  “I’ve always liked the idea of a special Hugo to be awarded (by force, perhaps) to literary authors who write books dripping with themes filleted from mainstream SF and then deny that it’s science fiction ‘because it’s not about robots and spaceships’.” [found here, at Peter Grant's web site.]

 

How not to write...

The Ten Commandments of Crime Fiction, by Dana Kaye at Hey, There's A Dead Guy In My Livingroom blog. 

The Ten Commandments of Crime Fiction

1.    Thou shall not cut your characters any slack

Plots are most compelling when the characters have the odds stacked against them

2.   Thou shall develop your characters

No one likes one-dimensional characters

3.    Thou shall not head hop

Switching POV mid-scene pulls readers out of the story

4.    Thou shall earn every coincidence

While life contains many coincidences, they have little place in your novel

5.    Thou shall omit unnecessary scenes

If a scene does not further the plot, it has no place in your novel

6.    Thou shall not rely on cliché

Does this really require explanation?

7.    Thou shall omit needless adverbs

We don’t need to know how someone sighed or shrugged or shouted

8.    Thou shall utilize your setting

The setting of your novel should enhance your characters and plot

9.    Thou shall revise

I don’t care what your mother says, your first draft is not perfect

10.  Thou shall not settle

Don’t settle on an easy ending or an easy fix to a plot problem

"I think of popular fiction as a type of folk art (like folk music), building on a long tradition, with old practitioners teaching new respect for the tradition, and the new ones innovating in often subtle ways while maintaining the traditions. Well, one advantage this gives pop fic writers is that we can count on readers to know the traditions about as well as we do, and that gives us an additional layer to build on: What is expected." Alicia, at Edit Torrent

I like that concept.  It definitely describes the process of how literature changes over time.  If we writers chose to do something totally avant guarde, we would likely have no one who understands what we are trying to do artistically, and any meaning in the prose would be diluted by either the readers' confusion or their irritation that old ways of communicating via writing are not followed. 

One of the things I have a problem with art: the insiders may understand and enjoy the intellectualizing of what some modern artist is doing by stringing sheets for several miles...but most of the public who pays for the art doesn't get it, doesn't like it, and finds it stupid. 

Maybe it's stupid, being too cutting edge...but if you alienate your target audience, who's going to represent, publish or buy your book?

When you hit the "Slough of Despond"

"It’s unfortunate that I had to leave off on that one at the very worst possible time to leave a book – 3/4s of the way through a first draft, that Slough of Despond where you realize that you never had the slightest bit of talent to begin with, that in fact elves wrote your last four books, along with everything else you’ve ever written, and you might as well go do that other thing that you can’t do because no writer is really equipped to work at anything else, but you better figure something out fast, because your writing career is officially over.

I’m sure none of you has the slightest idea what I’m talking about.

But yes, that’s where I was, and that’s what I had to face when I picked that book up again. Sheer, unadulterated panic ensues.

Now, as I tell my students, as writers we have to push through that section, it is not optional, because it’s exactly the emotional and physical predicament that our CHARACTERS are experiencing at that point of the story… when there is no possible solution to anything in front of them, or us, and we have to have that experience together to get to the final battle. The process is cleverly, sadistically designed that way as part of the magic of storytelling." Alexandra Sokoloff, from her blog

Take heart, writer pals!  You are not alone!

Now, pick up that 3/4 finished novel and get writing! (Why, yes, I AM talking to myself, thanks very much.)

What is High Concept?

"Only High Concept projects can be sold from a pitch because they are pitch driven. Non-High Concept projects can't be sold from a pitch because they are execution driven."    "High Concept Defined Once & For All," By Steve Kaire at The Writers Store 

Premise and High Concept... What's the difference?  As I was discussing in yesterday's post, knowing your premise is an important tool to help you both write and edit less.  Knowing your premise helps you to make better decisions as to character motivation, theme, plot elements and etc.  In short, it helps you to prevent having to revise difficult to change elements such as an entire character arc that is threaded throughout your novel. 

And to beat the topic to death, let me again quote Alexandra Sokoloff: Sokoloff says "You will learn a lot more about what your book or film is about as you're writing it. But you need to know what you think it's about before you start that draft." 

I have always understood High Concept to be something that makes your pitch stand out from the background, something that makes it the proverbial "lightning in a bottle" to the film producers or book editors out there.  But what does that mean, in specific terms?  Darned if I know!  Seems like High Concept is more defined by example than by words. 

But I found a definition that I think is clear enough I can use.  "High Concept Defined Once & For All," By Steve Kaire at The Writers Store has an explanation as to what and how High Concept is...and what it isn't.   

High Concept is a term that's been confused, misunderstood and misused by writers for decades. The common belief is that it's any movie that can be pitched in one sentence. A man who battles his wife for custody of their children is one sentence, but it's a million miles from being High Concept.

Others define it by describing it as "one film crossed with another film." In Robert Altman's The Player, the writers pitch their project to a producer as Out of Africa meets Pretty Woman. That is not what a High Concept film is. What they used is a framing technique that is given prior to pitching your project to prepare the listener for what's coming. You cross two well known films that touch upon the material you are about to pitch so the producer has some idea where you're going with your pitch. That is an example of a common pitching technique and not what defines High Concept.

Story ideas, treatments and screenplays can all have High Concept premises. But only High Concept projects can be sold from a pitch because they are pitch driven. Non-High Concept projects can't be sold from a pitch because they are execution driven. They have to be read to be appreciated and their appeal isn't obvious by merely running a logline past someone. This is the reason why films like "Pulp Fiction," "Star Wars" and "Sideways" could never be sold from a pitch.

The rest of the article gets into more detail on the topic.  Any thoughts or better links/definitions, please feel free to post in the comments.

Another source of great information on story structure is Alexandra Sokoloff's blog.  You can spend hours there.  As I linked and quoted her yesterday, just go to yesterday's post for relevant linkages.

Additionally, just a reminder about my currently running flash fiction blog contest.  Submissions close Sunday, August 22nd. Please see here for the details.

Do you know your premise?

Catching up on the blog reading today, and ran across Betsy Dornbusch's musings at her blog on premise and how/why one should stop and think while writing. 

For me at least, writing is taking more and more thought. One reason is because I refuse, yet again, to revise a book 700 times only to have it turned down because the premise is wrong. I used to leap in without much of a premise because I didn't put enough thought into it.

She has a good point.  You can give yourself a lot of heartburn and heartache by getting 100k words written only to realise you have got some major flaws and the premise of your story won't work.  So less need for revision of plot elements is a Good Thing.

But what the heck IS a premise?
I always struggle with defining these sorts of terms for myself.  But my basic take on defining premise is this: The premise of your story is what you, the writer, are aiming for the story to be. If the premise were a plant's roots, your intentions are the soil from which those roots spring, and the story structure that grows from those roots is the framework upon which the the other aspects of the work depends."  That's rather general, but it will do for me.    

Now, I admit that definition is very similar to the definition of the story's goal, e.g. the plan...the diff being that a goal is transitory and there can be many of them in a story, because each scene, chapter, character, etc. has their own goal or goals.  But premise is what you, the writer, are trying to say.  Not theme, which, unless you really want to beat your audience over the head with it, is subtextual; but the author's concept of what the story is about.  That is MORE than the plot.  You can have a murder mystery with the story actually about the personal growth/change of the detective.  The vehicle in which you tell that story is the plot; but it's not the premise, if I understand this concept correctly.

An interesting article on StoryForms blog talks about premises.  The author's definition of premise is multiple choice:

• It is the meaningful act by a person that causes change in themselves through a battle with an opponent.
• Premise is what the drama is about.
• It commits the story to one sentence and evokes its essential meaning.
• The premise is Aristotle’s unity and an essential part of story.
• It answers the question, what is the beginning , middle and end?
• The dictionary defines premise as ‘A proposal from which a conclusion can be drawn. Or A proposal from which an argument is based.’

I'm not sure that mass of options is helpful. Myself, I rather like the loose "it's what the drama is about" definition.  You can call that a GOAL, or, as Alexandra Sokoloff calls it, your PLAN.  That's easy to define.  A goal or plan can be anything--but basically it's what your character wants to accomplish.  There are multiple goals along the way, however, which your characters have to deal with

Now, Alexandra Sokoloff, my favorite source for technical breakdowns of writerly terms where they intersect with film and screenwriting, has a number of useful posts on premise and high concept. Several articles there that deal with premise include "What is high concept?" and "What's your premise?" The most interesting thing I think she says (in the last cited article) about premise is that, "It should be simple, right - to answer the question: “What’s your book about?” But writers who are used to being in the thick of writing sometimes have only the vaguest idea of the big picture." 

Along the lines of what Betsy's talking about, about thinking before writing, about knowing your book, Ms. Sokoloff says "You will learn a lot more about what your book or film is about as you're writing it. But you need to know what you think it's about before you start that draft."  An important point, especially if you are interested in not wasting your time and discouraging yourself by endless revisions. 

So, to get back to Betsy's thoughts, sitting and thinking about story and what you want before you start typing is important, or, at least, moderately useful for most of us.  I can see I would benefit from doing a bit more of that, at any rate. 

But be careful...'thinking' can lead to naps can lead to writing avoidance! [What? Why are you looking at ME like that?]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some other articles on premise, plans/goals and high concept:
Premise - ordinary versus high concept, "High Concept Defined Once & For All," By Steve Kaire at The Writers Store.  Tomorrow's post will feature this article. 
"Premise, Foundation of Story Telling," by Bill Johnson
"What's the Plan?" by Alexandra Sokoloff
"Plan, Central Question, Central Action" by Alexandra Sokoloff

 

Additionally, just a reminder about my currently running flash fiction blog contest.  Submissions close Sunday, August 22nd. Please see here for the details.

Envy vs Jealousy: a semantics example

Some of you may have noticed the title change.  Can you believe my brain glossed over "greed"
being there instead of "Jealousy"?  Funny how the mind can see what the eyes do not...

Jen Debenedictus has a great post up from a while back, discussing envy vs. jealousy.  I wanted to link to it because it's really an interesting discussion and an example of semantics and how we writers need to consider the baggage attached to a word, cultural finesses and shades of meaning, and other things that add distinction to a word or drag it into the muck.  Unless you like malapropisms or faux pas, you pay attention to these things.

Additionally, just a reminder about my currently running flash fiction blog contest.  Please see here for the details.

Newsflash!!! Heinlein workshop!!!

From Charles Stoss' blog:

Tor are publishing the first volume of a pretty much definitive biography of Robert A. Heinlein this month: Robert A. Heinlein: Learning Curve (1907-1948), by William H. Patterson Jr..

To mark the occasion, Tor.com are running a web seminar on Heinlein for a week, starting today; various people (myself included) will be discussing his work in the context of his first 41 years. I'm still digesting the book (I'm currently up to 1942) but will contribute in due course — and will point you at my Tor.com posting as and when it's up.

Gimme some more of that ascerbicism! (Is that even a word?)

"Along with small pox-infected blankets, Low Intensity Warfare and drinkable donuts (Damn you, Krispie Kreme), George Bush may be the worst thing the US has ever given the world. But I owe George something. When he and his fundamentalist buddies seized the White House in probably the most boring political coup in history, I wanted to know who they were. They believed in the Bible literally, that the Earth was six thousand years old and that the devil really was hiding under your bed. They were demon-obsessed primitives in twenty first century drag. They were Breton’s irrationalist Surrealists made creepy, boring and sexless." Richard Kadrey, author of Sandman Slim

Can I just roll around in that prose and plaster myself with it like a dog masking its scent?*

At the link is a fascinating article on fantasy writing from a former scoffer, writer Richard Kadrey. I like his thoughts on the genre and his meandering path to being part of the scene.

And, as a bonus, since I shared the ending of the book yesterday, here's the terrific first paragraph of Sandman Slim:

"I wake up on a pile of smouldering garbage and leaves in the old Hollylwood Forever cemetary behind the Paramount Studio lot on Melrose, though these last details don't come to me until later.  Right now all I know is that I'm back in the world and I'm on fire.  My mind hasn't quite kicked in yet, but my body knows enough to roll off the burning trash and to keep rolling until I can't feel the heat anymore."

So, what's to great about this opening?  A lot, to my way of thinking.  First, you know that this is speculative fiction of some flavor, because he's 'back in the world.'  And he wakes up on a pile of burning trash "not quite in his body" yet.  There is both a bit of humor and some appropriate foreshadowing in that choice, as our character, it turns out, is an escapee from Hell.  Hence the fire and the stench and all that make good sense both from the perspective of Hell being a very real aspect of this story, but also as a means of setting the tone, as our narrator, Stark's rather matter-of-fact observations about being on fire illustrate.  Additionally, the author is setting the stage for a non-stop running dialog in first person present tense of dark sarcasm that had me quietly giggling to myself with mad mad MAD glee as I read.  And the irony of Stark arriving back home to find himself burning on a pile of garbage is PRICEless.  An opening I, for one, couldn't say no to.

At any rate, the article was fascinating, go read it so you can make your brain hurt trying to figure out how Surrealism meshes with your take on fantasy writing.  I've been trying, not sure I can...but I think that Richard Kadrey would be fun to sit and drink a beer with! 

*Like I said in a comment on yesterday's post, "I can't believe I've missed his work before this. He's like the next Gibson and Mieville rolled into one huge glob of smart-assery. In a good way."

Rejectionist declares it SF Feminist week

"Science fiction: it does not have the greatest history. For every Lieutenant Uhura, there are a whole truckload of Kirks, and even Uhura had to wear that fucking uniform. But as long as science fiction has been written, the ladies and the queers and the people of color have been hijacking that shit for their own excellent ends, and the results are what we might describe as transcendent. You take White Man, Captain of the Universe; we'll take Octavia Butler, Ursula K. LeGuin, Sheri S. Tepper, James Tiptree Jr., Samuel Delany, Mary Shelley, and the legions of people they have influenced and inspired. We started reading that stuff young, and it did its percolating somewhere in there under the surface, so that when finally we got out of Dodge and met people doing the righteous work of the revolution, everything just sort of clicked. When you grow up reading about planets without gender it doesn't seem very odd that a person in your real life might feel the gender they live is not the same as the sex they were born with. When you spend your formative years obsessed with a story about transgender mutant prostitutes inhabiting post-apocalyptic Washington, D.C., it's not really a stretch to envision an anarchist, self-governing utopian future. When you read Samuel R. Delany as a kid, once you put your brain back in the ear it came out of it's no big deal when someone sits you down and says, Look, kid, pull your head out of your ass and recognize the privilege your white skin affords you."  The Rejectionist

Check out the Rejectionist's ranty diatribe on feminism in science fiction.  I LOVE it!  And she links to a totally rad blog called Feminist SF, which has a lot of good thoughts on race and gender (among other minimalized persons and persuasions) in speculative fiction.

Jumping into the lake of Verts

Well, taking a few minutes off from ACTUALLY WRITING, I thought I'd catch up on my blog reading via trusty Google Reader, which helps me at least know when I am blowing off my favorite 200-or-so bloggers rather than simply forgetting to check in regularly.  And, lo! I read a few snippets of things here and there and had a relatively interesting idea or two.  (Forgive me in advance for not looking up the links and references; I am being intolerably lazy, I know, but you will just have to live with it.  Either that, or you won't have a post to read.)  So I have a few things that struck me as interesting things to use.  (I should probably have broken this up into two posts, but instead you get a really long and rambly one.  Enjoy!)

Children and parenthood.  One blogger mentioned that in her novel she decided to have a slayer who has retired from slaying in order to deal with parenthood and ensure she maintains custody of her daughter.  The blogger poses the question: why don't we see more parents/parenting and children in urban fantasy?  Are we afraid to have children in the monster-slaying biz, or are we afraid to actualize children like in Lost Boys, where teens hunt and kill the monsters on their own?  Is it PC-ness or something else?  There's lots of room for interesting stories when parenthood crossbreeds with urban fantasy, I'd think.  It would be possible to have the children be involved, or the parent might want to keep them in the dark...or, even better, the kids could be embarrassed by mom/dad the slayer when they find out.  Or the reverse.

Less common settings.  And another blog mentions a cool sounding book based on an African (Senegalese?) myth, which is a milieu that isn't dealt with nearly enough.  Even better, the story is humorous.  We see very little in the US in the way of books set in other cultures or using other mythologies besides Greek, Roman, Native American or other familiar to our culture themes.  It seems that Norse and Celtic mythology and tales are the predominant "alternative" cultural motifs.  African myths and tales are rich in variety, characters, what have you.  (Read some of Migene Whippler's collected tales of the Orisha for a few examples.  Most are out of print, but I own them all because they are that interesting.)

Let go of the dysfunction. Stacia Kane has a great post from a couple days ago about Twilight and the one thing it really gets right: the concept that relationships are good things, and wanting to love and be loved isn't something to be ashamed of; and neither are marriage and kids.  We tend to downplay that in our society, and Stacia discusses how the criticism of the Twilight books can become negative criticism of wanting a relationship more than college and a career.  And there is nothing wrong with wanting to love and be loved.  Nothing.  And while the whole Edward thing is a bit creepy, the fact that Bella wants a relationship more than college and a career isn't inherently a form of mental disease.  So...how about having healthy relationships between your characters for a change, instead of a dysfunctional emotional shoot out in every chapter?  Or physical/emotional abuse?  Or lying, grudges, passive aggressive behavior?  [As a side note, the Kitty the Werewolf series by Carrie Vaughn has a very stable and healthy relationship between Kitty and her husband.  I just read the latest installment of the book and the thing that I pondered rather fondly after I finished reading it was that the relationship was so normal and Ms. Vaughn wrote it so well.]

Avoiding the Ooooh, Butterfly! Then there is the mention (by Mynfel, I think) about being easily distracted by the next shiny idea when you hit the middle-of-the-story hump, that place where things and thoughts get rather tangles and you absolutely must push through against your own mental inertia in order to get to the end.  (Is it mental inertia?  Or is it just that by that time the New, Shiny Idea has been niggling at you long enough you cannot further resist it?  Just sayin'...)

But really, the Big Idea of this post is that there are all sorts of trends, tropes, ideas, or commonalities in the everyday world that don't make frequent appearances in the (oft dysfunctional) fantasyland world of urban fantasy or fiction in general.  And perhaps we should, as writers, take a look at those elements--both to enliven what may be a stale plot and to look at other issues that might provide some interesting character development opportunities or plot enhancement.

When What Next rings your bell.  So, you have all these ideas for plot points or interesting things you can toss into the mix to add to the conflict or obstacles for your hero/ine.  Or you get stuck in that middle-of-the-book doldrum, or you have a scene that you can't figure out how to fix.  Lillith Saintcrow says she just kills off a character to get the story rolling again.  And while that probably works, it might seem a little obvious after a while if that's your only trick pony...so perhaps you can try something a little less bloody and with a bit more variety:  You can use the list of odd little tropes, ideas, trends like we discussed above.

Take things you don't see much of and see how they would play out in your chosen genre.  Or pick a trope or plot element that you have been using in the story and invert it, subvert it, convert it. 

Invert it.  Take any plot element and stand it on its head.  Work from there to see that shakes out from the idea tree.  For example, if the vampire slayer bad ass is totally tough and totally able to kick vampire butt from here to next week...you have her not so tough in ways that give her a real Achilles heel.  For example (and there are better ones out there, I'm sure) you could take a vampire slayer, the Chosen One like Buffy, and make her get ill at the sight of blood.  Or even pass out.  So how is she going to deal with that reaction?  I imagine she will have to get pretty clever about it.  Perhaps therapy, or perhaps she finds a way to make herself color blind!  You can take any expected ability of a hero and pull the rug out from under it, making an unforseen complication and a rich opportunity for variety in your plotting.  Also, humor opportunities might arise; and that is a plus.

Subvert it. Usually in a paranormal romance (like most romances) there's a common mistake where lovers lie by omission or deliberately out of fear.  Well, subvert that trope by making the lie a big, ridiculous one, one that is so egregious by the understatement (I have a child and her mother and I are estranged) versus the reality (my kid's mother is your arch enemy and I don't know how to tell you and I don't want you to hate me because I want you bad, future baby mamma #2.)  In other words, make the paranormal romance pivot on a fairly typical plot element of the lie/misunderstanding and twist it.  So, as in the example above, the fact that the guy turns out to be the father of the child of Our Heroine's the Evil Enemy--and then, to make matters worse and more complicated, he's got to drop everything to go to a parent/teacher conference when the kid acts out at Evil Doer's Prep by insisting she be called Joan of Arc and be martyred by burning at the stake.  (Or something equally outre.)  Just try finding something extreme and outrageous and see if that gets you moving.  You can always modify it later on, right?  

Convert it.  Take a trope or plot element and make bad into good, good into bad, enjoyable into loathed, sexy into turn off.  Whatever.  But if you turn things around, or have your character(s) react differently from what the reading audience would expect, you give yourself an opportunity for memorable differences between your vampire novel and the many, many others.  

There are lots of ways to change things up and make your storyline more interesting.  But when you feel most comfortable with a plot element, you might consider if it's because it's something you've seen a lot of times previously.  And you may want to dip at least a toe into the lake of Verts. 

So, if you are stuck...Find the Verts. 

Check your baggage (pun intended)

"Use the right word, not its second cousin."  Mark Twain

"The difference between the right word and almost the right word is the difference between lightning and the lightening bug."  Mark Twain

Catching up on blog reading a bit this morning, and ran across Marian Perera's recent post talking about my favorite writing contest, the Bulwar Lytton contest held at San Jose State University every year.  (Did I ever tell you I went to SJSU for a whole semester before dropping out to join the Army?) 

At any rate, she mentions the first quote, and I was reminded of the second, which I've quoted someplace on the blahg in previous years.  Also, check out the article Marian links to.  Funny stuff.  It also contains-- couched in the pithy humor-- some great advice for writers.

Sometimes, we don't know the precise word we want or need.To quote The Princess Bride, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

And, regarding word choice, nuance is everything, especially in English, which has so many words with so many shades of meaning attached.  Any given modifier has implications that go with it, some subtle, some not so subtle.  It's called baggage, and baggage is the subtext and submeaning of the word-- how it's usually used, what it usually implies.  The things that you communicate without having to spell it out...or, aas I'm discussing here, the things you didn't mean to imply.  Sometimes it's the literal context of the words in the converation or story; sometimes it's just the underlying submeanings or alternate meanings or common usages of a word.

A quick example is the word 'special.'  If you have two characters having a conversation while watching their children play, and one child falls and hurts himself:  Child's mom says, as she's dusting him off and kissing his booboo, telling him to go back to playing, "That's my special Johnny."  Other mom: "Really?  He looks fine to me."  'Special' may or may not have been intended to indicate a handicap of some sort, but in that context, it sounds like it was...because that is the baggage the word has gained from being used euphemistically for mental handicaps.

You also need to recognize unintended innuendo (sexual, racial, or other allusions.)  By definition, that's an 'indirect and usually malicious implication.'  Phrases that are actually innocent in the writer's mind can imply something else that can create problems.  For example, if you use the line "everyone should own one," it may bring to mind a racial slur, even if what you are saying has nothing to do with race and you in no way intended to imply anything along those lines.

So...check your word baggage, if not at the door then at least during final edits.  You need to recognize the fine differences between using the 'second cousin' word and the one that you really need to make your reference clear; but you also need to recognize perfectly good words when they contain subtleties and implications that work against what you are trying to communicate. 

When is *-punk a punk?

"I think of cyberpunk as the books that are out looking for a fight, ready to cut those unprepared with what they have to say."  Andrew Liptak, found via SF Signal repost

Good point in the linked article:  Is it still 'punk' when it's not the cutting edge, first-out-there of a genre?  Cyberpunk, steampunk-- you strip the genre of punkish impact when it's become mainstream.

Interesting thoughts on the naming of subgenre and spec fic categorization in general:

"...[T]here seems to be a tendency for new genres to be bestowed with the '-punk' suffix to differentiate various groups of works by content and theme to perfectly define its own little sub-genre and capture a specific audience."

"...[T]he idea of the word 'punk' being used as a label, especially a label right out of the gate, goes against all of the rebellion and fire that the term really should hold for that which it describes. Steampunk is a subgenre that is really beginning to grow a bit more, but doesn't feel new or edgy as far as its content goes: much of what you can see in the stories has long roots in the genre: the stories of Jules Verne and H.G. Wells, for example, could easily fall well within the common definitions of Steampunk, and they did it when the concepts were really new and punkish in their own right....Thus, a lot of this current steampunk fad is a retread over old ground, with stories that tell drastically different things this time around. Cherie Prist's latest book, for example, isn't so much about technology as it is about character inter-relations in a steampunk-styled environment, one that I'd really label as alternate history over Steampunk. The same goes for recent books by K.J Parker with Devices and Desires, Christopher Priest's The Prestige and Ekaterina Sedia's The Alchemy of Stone. I've long believed that the term science fiction, fantasy and speculative fiction in general really transcends the content and goes far more towards the themes, plotline and characters of each work."

And, I think most thought provoking:

"Ultimately, speculative fiction as a whole is done a disservice by the constant subgenres, which separates out everything into minuscule categories that are ultimately meaningless, governed and sold based upon their superficial elements, but not the central themes that ultimately make a story worth reading. Punking a genre seems to be the epitome of posing, especially if the term is simply applied to a brand of stories for the simple purpose of finding a market for them."

So, what would you call these?  I'm not against using the extant subgenre names, because alternate history instead of steampunk, or science fiction instead of cyberpunk isn't as descriptive in some ways due to current expectations.  But, as Mr. Liptak notes, the names don't mean what they used to mean!  And I also feel that, ultimately, so many subgenre labels are more confusing than helpful.  Sure, you get the yadayada about 'subgenres are excellent marketing tools' and this is true, to an extent.  But in the long run, the categories are confusion-making.

Perhaps what we really need is a subgenre Dewie Decimal System of a sort!  Anyone up for that?  Don't look at me she says, backing away from the crazy woman...

Openings: the ideal recipe

"The opening is important. It may be the most important part of your manuscript when it comes to getting an agent or an editor. It could determine whether your book gets bought or left on the shelf. But, on the other hand, don't spend your life trying to create the perfect beginning. Write it. Then go on with the rest of the story. Then go back and edit. It’s important not to get stuck in one part of the book. You have to keep moving forward."  Helen Ginger, from her blog. 

What is important to have in a story opening?  Lately, and seeing as I have had to restart a project in the works, I have been considering what really needs to be in an opening.  And I've come up with a few thoughts on what I think a speculative fiction story needs in an opening.  Things like what elements of the setting/world need to be shown, what info is needed to place the reader in the situation or into the pov character's head. 

So, what is the ideal recipe for the perfect opening, for the one that both hooks the reader and gives just enough information to set the stage and get the story moving along? 

It's a fine line to balance too much information with too little. But I think the most important thing to be aware of is that the opening of a story makes a promise to the reader about what kind of story it will be.  For example, if your opening tone is humorous, you need to continue that or they'll be disappointed.  If you open in a bucolic setting, ray guns and space ships shouldn't be showing up out of the blue because your readers will be expecting a fantasy.  

Second most important thing is to introduce the pov character and the/a conflict.  You might have gotten away with pages of omniscient lecture by the author a hundred years ago; but that won't fly today!

Third, you need to provide the basic information that will get the story moving and make sense enough so that the reader will grant you their trust.  If they cannot suspend their disbelief, you won't keep them reading.  Obviously, a lot of the story's elements aren't apparent in the first paragraph or two; but the author should provide enough set up to give the experienced speculative fiction reader the clues to know what to expect...and woe unto the writer who plays tricks by contradicting the promise of that opening!  Lose the reader's trust and they'll toss your book across the room in disgust.

As regards my recent experience with redoing my opening scene, I had a few ideas as to what constitutes things to pay attention to.  It's a sort of checklist that mainly consists of things to consider:

1. How do you show the type of story? What details are absolutely necessary to make this clear?
2. What details of the setting are needed to establish time, place, type of setting, and details of the world that will show what sort of story this will be?
3. Opening situation - what details are needed to hook the reader and to show what the opening conflict is and make the reader want to know what happens next?
4. And, after you determine all these things, which of these details can be removed without really spoiling the effect (because I bet there are plenty of those.)
5. And, finally, ask of every element, "Do I need this for the reader to understand the world, the conflict, or the situation?"  If not, take it out.  Lather, rinse, repeat.

In Magus of Athlinar (a science fantasy set a couple thousand years post-apocalyptic event), the biggest problem was draft 1 was full of my worldbuilding exercises, and the reader did not need to see all this way cool (to me) stuff.  I had not been asking myself #5 question at all.  Thus, I had too many details about the world, not enough about the conflict, and the scene thereby became rather passive and full of stuff that would likely bore the audience.  So I changed the setting to the main character arriving by airship/derigible, and added details that showed the level of technology, that there was magic in use, and that the magic worked with technology.  I also had a bit about the place they were heading and the character's misgivings, as well as a bit of why, which hinted at her past.  I am still deciding if there is too much there, but I've at least pared down the draft so that the opening has answered the questions of who's there, doing what, why, and what the consequences are for failure - which establishes the story.

What helps you rein in your enthusiasm when you have too much in your opening? 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And a few amusing and not-entirely-related links.

Stupidopolis has an hilarious take on corporate idea seminars...which sort of makes me think of myself when I'm trying to decide what to include in an opening (or plots in general);

Specusphere.com - a webzine "for consumers and creators of speculative fiction" has an interesting article, "Ray Guns for Rocketeers" which you might find entertaining.  It discusses SF weaponry.

And, once again, an invaluable post by the most excellent teacher of plotting, Alexandra Sokoloff on the index card method and the 3-Act structure. 

Yes, exactly!

"Sometimes when I'm drafting, I have to do a quick outline or write other notes to myself to figure out what happens next. I guess I could just write the draft and change the stuff that doesn't work, but these notes help me brainstorm. They're also a way to trick my inner editor into thinking I'm not really writing, and therefore don't need his "services."  Adam Hein, from his blog

I totally understand what Adam's getting at here, and I use this trick quite successfully.  In the past year or so, I'd gotten it in my head to abandon that technique and just write the draft.  The practice has kept me stalling in the quagmire of the middle, time and again, because I do just what he says: Engage the Inner Editor, and she's a real picky bitch.

So, instead of chasing my metaphorical tail, I've been scribbling "notes" that are actually free-writings of the scenes.  I just go with it, write whatever and however it comes to mind, and make a big ol' mess on the page...and end up with a very rough draft but one that IS decidedly a rough draft.  Voila! Ici! 

How (not?) to explain worldbuilding to your friends

I was in the coffee shop the other morning, actually there with the laptop and intending to write, when in stops a good friend (I'll call him Bob.)  We sit down and chat for a bit before going about our days.  The topic of science fiction came up, and he mentioned a mutual friend of ours--who happens to be a neuropsychologist--was a big fan of reading science fiction.  "You wouldn't have thought, him being a scientist," my friend says.  And I mention that speculative fiction is really all about inquiring minds asking questions and picking and prying at odd bits of things and piecing them together to see how they fit.  So really worldbuilding is something many scientists enjoy doing.  Arthur C. Clarke being an excellent example.

As an example, I said, "You know Bob, the thing about writers and scientists is that we are both asking what if questions.  To one side, it's scientific inquiry; and to the other, it's worldbuilding for a story.  And I segued off into a tangent by trying to illustrate this point.  "If you have some scientific breakthrough, say a medical breakthrough that allows you to stimulate any given neuron or nerve remotely, you could have the cure for paralysis.  But a government might want to take that benign and beneficial knowledge and weaponize it. "

So," I continue, "a writer has to extrapolate and think of consequences and social applications and political fallout and myriad ramifications of a single thing or idea or event in the story.  And juggle a bunch of them to make a coherent and interesting whole." 

I was sounding all smart, wasn't I?  And then I said, "Say a government did weaponize a remote, selective neural stimulating device.  Say they needed a distraction in order to assassinate (or protect) some person of interest.  What would happen if an entire theater of people all had instantaneous orgasms?"

Much laughter ensued.

And now I want to use that in a story some time.

An author's experience with her writing

Mind Games by Carolyn Crane.

I'm not going to review it, but I liked the book.  It takes a special way of thinking to be able to use a hypochondriac as a heroine and make it work! I'm looking forward to book 2, Double Cross.

Carolyn is also the blogger behind The Thrillionth Page, which I've followed for a long time now, and she has a great guest post over at cool spec fic blog Wicked Jungle.

I definitely like the cover, but if you ask me, the knife is a bit much and doesn't really fit the story.  It's either weapons or tattoos, though, I guess.

I'll have a little mortar with my poetry, please

Angela Ackerman, the Bookshelf Muse, had an interesting discussion on writing with the senses and how to pull readers into your writing.  I wholly agree with mixing your description with much more than visual descriptions to draw your readers into your fictional world.  But I think that there's something else we writers should consider, too, and here's my comment to that effect.*

Writing with the senses is excellent advice and I totally agree with...that. 

But I think that, to evoke emotion, it's also needful to use a lot of the tricks that a poet uses.  Writers shouldn't forget the words themselves are your tool, not just what you say with them. 

By using the right words you can evoke emotion like good poetry does, with evocative metaphor/simile, word choice, pacing, sentence structure, voice. 

How you say it is just as important as the details you choose to promote.

Yes, I show my poetry writing roots in my opinion, don't I?  But consider this:  A novel is a building, a building made of words and meaning.  And words are bricks.  How you arrange the bricks defines the structure.  And the descriptive elements define the meaning/emphasis.  Descriptions are the flying buttresses, stained glass windows, and Gothic/ Art Deco/ frou frou/ gingerbread that give the whole building it's personality.  The two must work together to form a harmonious and functional whole. 

*Forgive me for not generating an entirely fresh post on the subject; I've got a lot going on and surgery in a week.  I'll engage more neurons in blogging when all of me is present and accounted for.  Hopefully that will be after surgery on April 1st.

The three stages of writing

Dani Greer at Blood Red Pencil has some great thoughts on the stages of writing a novel. 

The first stage in any writing project is getting the words down on paper, without regard to form, grammar, punctuation, or anything your inner critic might find to pick apart. This is where the writer dreams with reckless abandon – or in the case of a memoir - remembers without reservation....

The second major step in writing involves revising and editing. This is where we examine the holes in our stories, and as editors, poke in a few more before the author hunkers down to the business of repairing the flaws....

Finally, and particularly in today’s publishing environment, comes the third major component of the writing life – marketing. One cannot get around it.

Minor characters

Along the lines of the previous post, Liana Brooks discusses minor characters and deciding if they're pulling their weight.  (It's the 'gun on the mantlepiece' used for characters.)

How do you outline your stories?

I'm presently outlining (in some detail) a story, Blood Shot. It's both an experiment in discipline and to see if a detailed outline will be helpful to my pantser self.

Over the years I have seen a few varieties of outlining, and my vast preference is 4x6 cards, but they encourage me to keep adding plot elements...a Bad Thing. So I'm adapting a few key concepts and came up with the following format for each scene or chapter (depending on how much detail I've come up with already):

POV Character, POV type. Setting: ___. Description of locale. Action:  describe it in general.  Purpose 1: Main purpose. Purpose 2,3,4, etc.: Additional purposes.  (intended purposes: establish characterization, introduce new character, narrative/worldbuilding, backstory, motivation, action that moves plot forward, significant plot devices like Climax or Black Moment, red herrings, which plot or subplot it serves.)

I do this as a bulleted list using Word 2003.  I keep one plot point per bullet for now, but I use the colors to make finding the data simple. You can organize your outline however it makes sense for your process, but if you use Word's outline function, it's complicated and vastly more work than it's worth.

What I do find interesting about this experiment is that I am able to see just how much weight a scene is pulling. I read somewhere, and agree, that if a scene doesn't do at least three of the following-- further the action, provide important information (including worldbuilding narrative for spec fic), establish or develop character or relationships-- it shouldn't be there. The outline process lets me see where this does and does not happen, so I can fine tune it before I waste time on writing something I won't keep.

My slightly disconcerting finding is that I seem to toss all of the elements I listed into most scenes in the parts I've already written!

So I now have to consider what is TOO DENSE?!!

A thought about plot and story

Story (n):  "narrative: a message that tells the particulars of an act or occurrence or course of events;"
Plot (v): "devise the sequence of events in (a literary work or a play, movie, or ballet);" and (n): "the story that is told in a novel or play or movie etc."

Despite the definitions above, I'm inclined to say that plot and story aren't the same thing.  Perhaps it never occurred to you to split that particular hair.  But, while helping a friend with his synopsis, it occurred to me that his crazy-but-good story was hideously difficult to describe as a linear plot, yet functiond as a story because story implies meaning and sense.  Nonsensical can make sense in a novel. 

One might make the mistake of thinking that the novel then was either not a workable spec fic genre novel (too literary, perhaps); of that it was totally unworkable.  But what ho! Not so!  Try reading Delaney's Dahlgren, a classic with an ouroborous for a plot, which I adored.  There's a worthwhile story there about a man who finds himself in a strange world with no memory, and begins to wonder if he's in a story himself.  I find some parallels in my friend's novel plot and its story, and it occured to me that it was worth a mention here.

So that's my thesis: The plot can be meaningless, but there needs to be meaning in the story...and the story is the characters' journey.  And I'm not talking literal plot points but the essential meaning for the characters (and thus the readers.)

You can have a goofy, strange, indescribable-in-a-linear-manner plot that blurs reality with fiction/ meta concepts/ psychodrama-- but the way you the writer share the characters' experiences makes the writing make emotional sense, even if it isn't logical.  If you make it make sense, feel acceptable, even the weirdest stuff will feel appropriate and even make a certain bizarre sense.  That's your goal. 

I'm sure not everyone will agree with me.  But then, that sort of odd plot isn't everyone's cup of tea, either.  I've read Dahlgren at least a half-dozen times, so you can guess my feelings. 

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this, too.  Maybe I'm just talking stuff. 

The easy bit

"The IDEAS are never the problem. Hell, I've got HUNDREDS of those. In fact, if you have to ask a writer that, then you are most definitely NOT wired like a writer." Erica Orloff

I'll just leave you with that thought for the day.  I also like Ms. Orloff's insights about how it's the execution.  But then, if you read this blog, you write, so you know what that's about.

Okay, people, find the time and park your butt in the chair.  Flex your fingers and get them churning out prose.

Have a lovely week. 

The Inner Critic as Muse

[Reposted from 10/7/06]
Writers, like many other artists, frequently fall into the trap of listening to their inner critics and imploding in a blast of self doubt. Blame our culture, blame human nature, blame genetics, blame childhood trauma. The fact remains that the vast majority of those who pick up a pen to write fail to complete the mission, even though they are certainly capable of doing so.

And, sadly, whether the book would have become the next New York Times best seller will remain unknown, because the author couldn't get past an inner stumbling block. You might call this fear of success. Or perhaps this tendency is better described as fear of movement, an even more insidious version of phobia, because it's one we are conditioned to ignore, like the proverbial elephant in the room.

What keeps us from succeeding as writers? From finishing, for that matter? I suppose that every writer needs to face their inner critic and slay her like a dragon, or harness that force and use it to our advantage.

The Fear.
Lillith Saint Crow describes the crippling fear of failure really well in her blog:

What if nobody likes it? What if it flops and the publishing
company decides I'm no longer worth spending time on? What if
everybody hates the series? What if there's a big hole in the
book that nobody told me about because they thought I knew?
What if this book is the last one I ever sell? What if?

Ah, the Scylla of insecurity and the Charybdis of self-hatred. I
wish I could lash myself to the mast and sail through
these rocks.

I think that's about the best description of it I've ever seen, even though her perspective is from the pre-publication jitters experience. I've got a technique that sometimes works for me when I get really frazzled. No, not anti-anxiety meds, although those aren't bad.

Here's where I direct you to Victor Frankl, the developer of logotherapy. He wrote the famous book, "Man's Search for Meaning," a seminal book in psychology. The basic premise is that a human being can cope with just about anything happening in his or her life if there is seen to be some inherent meaning. You can go nuts following existential thought (now there's an irony) but something I read in the above-mentioned book has stuck with me and become the most useful took in my mental toolbox.

The concept stems from a technique Frankl describes regarding how to resist temptation, e.g. avoid doing what is unhealthy. Basically, the technique is this:

Say I wish to lose weight. I'm at a restaurant. The waiter comes by with the dessert cart. I crave that luscious piece of german chocolate cake sitting there looking gooey and delicious. I know I shouldn't have the cake; nevertheless, against all rational thought, I really, really, want that cake! I want that cake so badly, in fact, that I at that moment don't give a rat's patoot what the consequences of eating it will be!

Instead of giving in, however, I do a simple excercise: I envision a future where I already ate that cake. I imagine what the feeling I'd have afterwards would be - remorse, self-disgust, etc. - and I just roll in those feelings like a dog in a dungheap. Get to know it. Feel it like it's real.

After I'm finished, I reconsider that slice of cake. My perspective about the importance of that cake has been altered. I can be more objective. I can resist. I can choose to resist because I've developed a profound mental separation from the problem: perspective. And this allows me the freedom to act consciously and deliberately.

Perspective is the key.
The inner blocks to being a successful writer vary, obviously, from one person to the next. But my general observation is that, for most of us, it goes beyond simple anxiety and becomes a complex. This gordian knot of mixed emotions ties in fear of success with fear of failure; fear of not measuring up to a personal artistic ideal with fear that you are, in truth, unable to see the elephant in the room: you don't know you suck. That's what makes the elephant so potentially horrible: that your failings are known to everyone but yourself. The complex is fear of looking ridiculous and secret shame that you think you are so wonderful. It is myriad reasons that grow from our personal histories, our environment and whatever childhood traumas got their claws into our creative processes.

Adding to that milieu of confusion is our Puritan-based culture. We were steeped in sin long ago and the faint remnants still color our social perceptions today. The myth of the American Dream compels us to succeed; because if you cannot succeed you are, by definition, a failure. But, according to the American Dream, you will always succeed if you try hard enough, are smart enough, are good enough. Implication: Sinners lose. You are a failure because you sinned. You are a sinner because you failed.

Now there's a paradigm where you cannot ever win unless you, well, win. It keeps the upper eschelons happy with their lot and the rest of us supporting them so we can aim for the thrones ourselves.

Hmmm, off topic? Not really. Whatever is in the world around us in also in our heads and hearts. As above, so below. What we perceive in the world is a reflection of who we are inside. Change that and we can change our world. Or at least manage to get a story written.

There are so many complicated emotional hooks that pull the budding artist in many directions, it is a small miracle that anyone accomplishes anything.

Which is where Frankl's technique comes in handy. You use it to divest yourself of the irrelevant fears, worries and etc. that keep you from staying in that lovely, creative, right-brained place of artistic wonder. You use it to derail the freight train of I know I can't, I know I can't while you ankle off down the Road Less Travelled with your trusty laptop.

And you even use the technique to use your fears to generate ideas.
It's pretty simple. Instead of resisting the problem, I do a Vulcan mind-meld with it. I welcome that panic/worry/anxiety and let it make itself at home in my head. I invite it to spread out, rest its feet on the coffee table and nag me about my failings as a writer and artist. I let it tell me how no one loves me, everybody hates me and I'll always be a failure.

I take those fears and worries, and consider that worry as if the rejection had already come to pass. As if the fear of failure had already occurred. And I allow myself to wallow in it for a bit.

But then I move on to the real-world consequences. And I play them up. If I worry that no one likes my writing, the focus becomes not that they don't like my work, but the consequences. I imagine being unable to pay the bills and I imagine being evicted and living in a soggy box in Golden Gate Park, drenched in fog and misery and looking to avoid the needles in the bushes when I scramble there to both hide from the muggers and the police.

I imagine that I am assaulted while living on the streets, that I retaliate and end up in some horrible over-the-top situation (such as running from the Russian mob) because, say, I accidentally-on-purpose killed the would-be rapist. I imagine being chased down a dead-end alley, no hope of escape but trying hard, and I begin to wonder... What happens now? It's out of the realm of the original situation. Then I envision the orange outline of a door parting the shadows, and a hand that slaps across my mouth and drags me inside before I can scream...

Oooh, wait - this is a cool scene for a story! Who is that character I am skull-peeping into? It's not me, that's for certain! And what the heck is that doorway? The 5 Ws and a plethora of questions strike. Maybe this ties into something I am already working on, maybe it's something to remember for another day. I jot it down and get back to work.

I go from worry to an idea that way. Of course, I do have to make myself get back to the original project. And that's another project altogether.

The uncanny valley

Catching up on my blog reading and commentary, I discovered a new term which intrigued me: The Uncanny Valley.  Per wiki,

"...as a robot is made more humanlike in its appearance and motion, the emotional response from a human being to the robot will become increasingly positive and empathic, until a point is reached beyond which the response quickly becomes that of strong repulsion. However, as the appearance and motion continue to become less distinguishable from a human being, the emotional response becomes positive once more and approaches human-to-human empathy levels.

This area of repulsive response aroused by a robot with appearance and motion between a "barely human" and "fully human" entity is called the uncanny valley. The name captures the idea that a robot which is "almost human" will seem overly "strange" to a human being and thus will fail to evoke the empathic response required for productive human-robot interaction.

I recall hearing back in the 90s how companies were making their CGI animation less realistic due to a negative reaction from viewers in test screenings; but I had no idea why this was the case, or that there was a scientific term for the phenomenon.  

But the Uncanny Valley hypothesis to explain the poor audience response is really cool idea fodder as a basis for what if questions to start some world building, as listed below.

I couldn't help but picture scenarios where this natural tendency is juxtaposed with robots, aliens, holograms, cyberspace, and other forms of 'fake' life that fundamentally disturb or screw up humanity because we aren't, genetically or culturally speaking, geared for that sort of thing. 

Ideas.

• In a world where robots think to take over, they overlook a problem: No matter how much they make themselves look like humans, they aren't exactly human, and the human subconscious reacts with the Uncanny Valley effect, or something like it. Ensuing riots and troubles when it's a struggle for robots to be considered intelligent, or for robots to get rights, or for the author to pose the great thematic question What Is Life/Intelligence/Humanity/Fill-In-The-Blank. In any case, Robot fail! You can also have society collapse into chaos, riots, revolution, etc. if robot freedom actually is pushed through, and a new Civil War commences over basically the same concept, slavery. (This could be interesting.)
• After a new generation of humans is raised more by robot nannies or holographic nannies, or spending most of their educational life with computer generated teachers and care givers, the new generation starts acting funny/dysfunctional due to being raised by robots or holograms, none of which resemble humans, causing the young to bond improperly and fundamentally affecting society. Perhahps these kids are psycopaths, perhaps they become sociopathic, totally lacking empathy or the ability to bond with anything that breathes and has a pulse. In any case...Childrearing Fail!
• You could also have a generation of robots or holograms or version of cyberspace that are self-evolving and intelligent, and which reject the requirement to copy humanity, thereby kicking off the Uncanny Valley effect. Sort of a damn the torpedos, full speed ahead action that has consequences.
• Aliens offer us a place in the greater galaxy...thus unearthing (forgive the pun) a screaming horde of haters (otherwise known as humans) loose to poison galactic peace with our screwy need to be repulsed by anything that resembles us. This reaction could pop up the first time humanity reaches a group of similar life, where the galactic resettlement gurus place them, thinking that since they are so much alike, humanity can live peacefully with the G'chkchkim. Perhaps the Earth is destroyed, either by us or some other cause and the aliens feel sorry for us. So they stick us with the G'chkchkim and assume we will get along...Ooops: Galactic peace: Fail! (I can't help but picture this one told via a frame story, the trial of one of those who commited the atrocity of xenocide on the G'chkchk planet.)
• Re the above, suppose that humanity was seeded on various planets with the express purpose by some 'parent' race to serve a particular role in the future. Perhaps humans were to be part of a network of supply depots, thus making humanity's reaction to the aliens perfectly logical and an instinct based on their earliest ancestors' experiences with being treated as livestock? Oooh, that might be an Instinct: Win!
• Remember that Heinlein story, The Veldt? Kids kill their parents with holographic lions that mysteriously are real in the first version of the holodeck ever described (to my knowledge)? Childrearing: Fail once again!

As usual, my ideas tend to show a rather jaded and cynical view of mankind.  But if you can take this stuff and make a happy-happy-joy-joy plot out of it, be my guest.  I'll root for you. 

Out-of-order tense or causation

"Good, linear prose takes the reader directly from event to event in sequence through time. Yes, sometimes we break that line on purpose, as with a flashback. But in general, we want events to proceed in a direct line through the chronology of events."  Theresa (guest blogging from Edit Torrent)

Romance University blog had an article last week regarding out-of-order actions or causation in description.  I thought I'd share, as this is something I've found when critiquing the writing of other writers.  I don't know why, but I don't think I've ever had a problem with this, barring the occasional oversight.  But newish writers in particular seem blind to this problem and do it over and over. 

I won't reinvent the wheel when the article is so clear and concise, but the basic idea is this:  You need to place the elements of description or action in either chronological or logical order.  Consider the timing, consider what causes what, what must happen first (e.g. cause precedes reaction, slipping precedes falling down, etc.), and check to see that things that can't be done before something else is perceived or done follow instead of lead.  You must do this, or the reader will have to either go back and reread or puzzle over what you meant.  It is a bit jarring, pulls them from the story, and this is not a good thing. 

Check out the Ask An Editor articles on the Romance University's site.  No matter what genre you write, there's something to learn.  Also, you might read Edit Torrent blog for daily reminders and information on grammar and writing skills.

First lines: make the right impression

Having grabbed a semi-random bunch of books (okay, they were topmost in the large pile of Not Yet Shelved recent reads) I thought I'd share a bunch of first lines.  The first lines do tend to be important, and seeing a bunch of them together provides an interesting contrast...rather like wearing stripes with plaid and polka dots, but let's not discuss it too deeply, okay?

"Donal sketched a fingertip salute to the shadows beyond the stone steps."  Bone Song, John Meany
On its own this isn't as mood and scene setting as the rest of the paragraph, but it's good, solid wordsmithing.  We know Donal is the pov person, that this is 3rd person pov, and that he salutes something that lurks in the shadows.  This last does make you a very important thing, which is to ask a question: what's in the shadows? And that's a good thing.  Questions and answers pull readers along into the opening of the story, which is precisely what you want.  Keep 'em interested, keep 'em mesmerized.  (I loved this book, btw.)

"Stalking a time traveler is hard work, even if you are one."   Curse the Dawn, Karen Chance
Well, you definitely know you are not in Kansas any more!  Paranormal story alert in that opening line.  Also, it establishes the speaker is likely a proactive type (she's stalking this unnamed time traveler, not watching) and it does make you want to know about this time traveler business and who are these people and why is one stalking the other.  Lastly, for me at least, this implies an action-oriented story.  That's due to the nature of openings: They make a promise to the reader.  And this opening line promises action and that the book is either fantasy or science fiction due to the time travelling mention.  If that's what your reader wants, and this is what they get...you are doing good.

"Molly and the kids and I were eating a big lunch when the lightning hit."  Blood Cross, Jane Yellowrock #2, Faith Hunter
This start is (literally) shocking and possibly dangerous.  Readers are going to ask what happens next. Does the lightning strike anyone? Destroy anything?  What? What happens??!!  And the scene is established, at least in the form of a vivid visual--kitchen table with people around it and a lightning bolt.  Also, as this is a sequel, readers learn immediately that Jane's friend Molly and her kids are still visiting her.   This places the book in time as relatively close to the end of the first book in the series, and implies to those in the know that Jane is still in New Orleans, still in the same house.

"Two rules live by: Never admit to being a shapeshifter on a first, second, or third date with a human."  Deadtown, Nancy Holzner
The interesting structural trick of this first line is that the thought isn't finished.  You as reader need the second sentence to finish it, so you are naturally pulled forward to read the next line.  This line also establishes this is a paranormal fantasy of some flavor, and it at this point might or might not be romance or urban fantasy.  But you know it's likely either of those two.  Also, we get a feel for the voice of the main character at once via the first-person point of view.

"There was no sign above the abandoned church, but someone had scribbled, "Let us prey" above the main doors."  Death's Mistress, Karen Chance
A bit of dark humor sets the tone for the first-person voice, establishing character and, to some extent, setting.  I liked the joke, and it leads into the situation which follows, which is a vampire nightclub in an abandoned church.  Nicely ironic.  This follows a similar pattern to the Deadtown first sentence, because while we understand the joke, we don't know--yet--why it's amusing, and that acts similarly to the half-completed thought in the Deadtown example.  I like that.  It's subtle and very good at making readers want to know more.

"I'd die for him."  Faefever, Karen Marie Moning
Huh what?  We need to know what this is all about, right?  So that startling statement gets the reader's attention.  The next sentence backs the story up in time by having the main character explain that first line is the wrong place to start; but the odd, extreme statement does the job of getting readers to wonder what's going on here.  I'm not overly fond of the technique used, but it does startle and get the attention of readers. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So those are a few example of openers to recently released urban, dark or paranormal romance fantasy.  Can you tell which is which?  Can you discern a pattern or patterns frequently used to get the reader curious and make them want to keep reading?  Take a look at some of your favorite reads and some you dislike and see what their openings look like.  Check out openings for genres you normally do not read.  Google something on "bad opening lines" or check out the Edgar Bulwer Lytton contest for examples that are accidentally-on-purpose funny.  Perhaps you might dig out some of your own dust-gathering false starts and see why you gave up on them, why you lost interest.  Maybe they lacked something to provide impetus to readers' curiosity, or maybe you can see something else that makes them not work for you?

I find that the first line on its own is not always the thing that hooks a reader, but it's like that first glance between lovers: their eyes meet and something sparks between them, and they KNOW they are interested, if not yet in love.  Love comes later, after a bit of getting to know you and all that stuff.  And it's the same way when you read and when you write to get readers interested.  You seduce them with your prose.  

The lines that follow the opener must continue that interest, build upon it, build the scene and genre--and the interest of the reader, too, until they're convinced they want to stay in your fictional world for a time.  In short, the opening of your story is a covenant with the reader, and you must keep that promise or you will anger or disappoint them. 

So it pays to be aware what opening lines are implying and what they are telling.  It's the first impression, and  you want to make the right one.

Today, a fistful of links

"The reason to use a subplot isn’t as important as ensuring there is at least one subplot in a manuscript. Otherwise, the novel will read more like a long short story, instead of a multi-layered book like those readers are accustomed to buying."  Lynnette Labelle

Here are some great articles to read for you all:

First, we have the Rejectionist, who has a gathering of links on writing people of color.  This is a discussion that I've been having with myself ever since last year's racefail webstorm.  Or should I call that a twitterfest?  Dunno.  Irrelevant.

Vampire Chix blog (a Cool Site you might want to bookmark) has a blog about how the various subgenres of vampire books are being falsely labeled.  (Don't you just hate it when you think you have an urban fantasy and it turns out to be a romance, or when a supposed romance turns out to be horror or UF?) 

Blood Red Pencil's guest blogger, Shon Bacon, has two excellent posts on Using Characters & Scenes to Trim the Fat from Your Story, parts one and two at the links. 

Magicalworlds.net, another WAY cool site, has a great reminder:  Did you save?  (Please, go save NOW.)

Orbit Books blog has a useful post on How A  Story Works.  Lots of food for thought there.

And Lynnette Labelle has a great short post on why you might consider using subplots. 

Story lengths and editing

Liana Brooks has an excellent article on length and editing so your work's word count fits your genre.

Hormesis (repost)

Reposted from August 13, 2008

"The theory of hormesis has been around for decades, but has long been met with scepticism or downright suspicion. In recent years, however, biologists have pieced together a clear molecular explanation of how it works, and hormesis has finally been accepted as a fundamental principle of biology and biomedicine. The question now is how to take advantage of hormesis to live longer and healthier lives."  Mark Mattson & Edwin Calabrese, New Science, 6 Aug 2008

Homeopathic medicine has been sneered at by allopathic believers for a long time now.  Probably since the Swiss physician and alchemist Paracelsus recognized the concept of hormesis, or "a process whereby organisms exposed to low levels of stress or toxins become more resistant to tougher challenges."  (See cited article.)  We also have been hearing in the news recently that a bit of germs and dirt actually innoculates the immune system, keeping it strong.

The advent of mechanical models of the universe affected philosophy and scientific thought as well.  You can see how the advent of Copernicus' postulation in 1543 that the Earth orbited the Sun had a profound affect.  Likewise, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes and Isaac Newtons' ideas fostered a burgeoning model of mechanistic life had effecuts upon the theories of medicine.  The 'magic' was discounted in favor of 'scientific' medicine.  Sometimes it wasn't very scientific and this baby and bathwater approach to deciding what was proper medicine ignored means of healing that were more effective.  Common sense was often forgotten as well in the fervor for new ways that embraced the mechanistic models of science.  (Note:  This is my loose interpretation of these events, not a genuinely well-researched treatise.)

Anyhow, medicine in the Dark and Middle Ages was, in part, a reflection of the male-oriented allopathic physicians seeking to control healthcare over the grannies and midwives who used knowledge of plants and 'what worked' over high-falutin' ideas like cupping and starvation to heal illness.  It was a product of religious and social tensions as much as it was about knowledge.

Starting with Hippocrites, who is credited as being the father of modern medicine, however in the middle ages, the collapse of the Greek and Roman empires caused a halt in the progression of medicine, and the repository of medical knowledge was maintained primarily at the monastery, which frequently had hospitals attached.  (See Wikipedia article on Medieval medicine.)  While astrology often got lumped in with medicine at this stage, herb craft and medicine practiced by outsiders--those who were not part of the religious heirarchy or doctors with political clout--were often labeled witches.  And medical philosophy was increasingly tied in with the Christian world view.

As Wiki explains, "As Christianity grew in influence, a tension developed between the church and folk-medicine, since much in folk medicine was magical, or mystical, and had its basis in sources that were not compatible with Christian faith. Spells and incantations were used in conjunction with herbs and other remedies. Such spells had to be separated from the physical remedies, or replaced with Christian prayers or devotions. Similarly, the dependence upon the power of herbs or gems needed to be explained through Christianity.The church taught that God sometimes sent illness as a punishment, and that in these cases, repentance could lead to a recovery. This led to the practice of penance and pilgrimage as a means of curing illness."

How does this relate to your novel?
In a worldbuilding mode, you might need a conflict wherein your character is in conflict with society over what he/she knows works and what is allowed.  Classic conflict for Church or State vs. Individual.  Even Big Biz vs. the Little Guy.  The motif is one of struggle against some amorphous juggernaut, a thing that cannot be stopped and must be either worked around or be crushed by it.

And hormesis, the idea that you can use a little of something to do good, could also be used in a magical scenario for your fantasy novel.

The important thing to take away from the discussion is, I believe, that large social institutions can influence--perhaps very wrongly--the growth and function of science.  And it can be to the detriment of a society.  The human Will To Be Stupid is so common...

What about the spear carriers? (repost)

Thought I'd share this once more (From Oct 10, 2007):

It's always a temptation when writing, I find, to treat the smaller roles like I do new neighbors:  First impression is all there is to them.  You see them, form a sense of who they are and just carry on as usual.  It might not be until you really get to know them that you discover the apparent hippie is actually a NASA researcher and his wife is a PhD in Social Anthropology who does freelance consulting for the UN. 

At that point you have to take a mental step back and take another mental snapshot of them. 

The failing here is one that is one of adaptation which humans found useful:  The application of quickly formed labels for things and individuals.  This aided survival to form an instant impression of Good, Bad, Scary, Nice, etc.  Simplistic, but depth wasn't needful to survival.  A still shot of something that isn't questioned again without strong provocation.

Unfortunately, this trait lingers on in our behavior to the present day, allowing us to meet someone and form an impression that we just don't bother to change...resulting in a rather shocked realization when we discover the 'hippy' is a rocket scientist or similar.

And how does this specifically apply to writing?
I submit to you, fellow writers, that you probably do this glossing over with many of your bit players in  your stories.  It's only human nature, after all.  We do it in real life.  And it is hurting your novels because with small bit players, the spear carriers, you can add so much realism and veracity, empowering your worldbuilding and increasing the impact of your ideas-- if you reframe your image of that flat, pale little character on page 93.

Consider this:  People are like the patchwork quilt.   They are composed of bits taken from here and there, the places they've been, the people they've known, the emotional experiences they've had.  And then they sew these together.  Each is unique and beautiful in its own way, and you, the author, can use this knowledge to portray every character as individual.

It's easy to forget that people don't come to us in our stories frozen in time.  Especially when we are talking about minor characters.  If they do not react and change in direct experience during your stories, you have failed them and your story.  So they are a spear carrier in this story; but if you treat them like they are real people, they will add breadth and life to your writing.  Give the spear carriers a bone and let them be real enough to change some in your works.

But play Pygmalion and breathe the breath of life into them.  See how fascinating the story becomes.

The price of tea in China

I'm sure you've heard the saying, "What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?"  or similar odd turns of phrase.  I mean, they litter the English-speaking landscape, and many of them even contain antique constructions of grammar that are only still in use in such phrases, and vocabulary that is obscure at best.

Something that struck me while reading the other day was how a particular author (I've read five books this week, so I can't recall which one sparked the thought) avoided using turns of phrase that were outdated or ill suited to her fantasy world by means of creating her own versions that fit her worldscape.  Because it truly does stand out and grab my attention as a sort of anachronism when these everyday sayings pop up. 

In worldbuilding--particularly one that is nothing like our present day world, such as epic fantasy or space opera on a far planet--the writer needs to omit any sayings like "What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?" or similar.  They are, at best, cliche; and, at worst, they are unsuited to the fantasy world. 

Likewise certain vocabulary should be avoided.  For example,  Having your sort-of-Medieval fantasy heroine tell her companion, "I'm jonesing for a bowl of soup," would rather call negative attention to itself unless your character originated in our world.

In any case, when you edit your stories, keep an eye peeled for anachronisms, cliches and such when you edit.

Plot, the perpetual need to overthink it, and some simple ways to get a handle on the plot monster

"Contrary to many general-purpose dictionaries, a plot is not the main story of a work. A plot is the series of events providing conflict within a story. The search for a murderer is a plot. Surviving a natural disaster is a plot. A plot can be summarized without specific names or settings. (Do not argue with teachers about this… plot is whatever they want it to be!)

The plot is sometimes called the “spine” of a story. The plot is the action, while the story is the emotions associated with the action. Yes, a plot can be caused by the emotions of characters, but the action is apart from the story. Plots are the results of choices made by the characters: the characters take action (or don’t) and events happen as a result.

Aristotle set the “rules” for modern plots: there is a beginning, middle, and end. The beginning is short, the ending shorter, and the middle is where most of the plot twists reside. If you write 100 pages, it might take 30 to introduce the characters and plot, 50 for the twists, and 20 for the ending. The beginning ends with the introduction of the primary plotline. The middle ends with a climactic showdown.

Many writers “plot” their plots, like a timeline. It helps to see where choices are made and actions taken, so you can pace the story. Pacing is important because most stories accelerate in action as they progress. While the beginning events might last days, the end usually occurs in hours."  Tameri guide for writers article

The most important thing to take from this is that "story is the emotions associated with the [plot] action." But all the rest of the above is great stuff to tattoo on the backs of your hands. 

As I have a terrible tendency to get all confused about plot (overcomplicating things, as is my wont) this quote particularly resonated with me.  There are many excellent points on story structure (including a nifty chart you can cadge for your own use).  Something I found particularly useful, though, was this handy rule of thumb for discerning plot:

"It should be possible to state a plot in one or two sentences. If a plot requires more than two dozen words to describe, it is too complex. The primary plot is simple; the story is complex. The more provocative, unusual, and thoughtful a plot, the more likely a reader or audience is to want to know the complete story. Shakespeare’s plots are simple, but the plays have wonderful depth. Tom Clancy spy novels are long and complex, but the plots are easy to state. Think about your favorite stories and how simple the primary plots are." 

Hemingway on brevity

"If a writer of prose knows enough about what he is writing about he may omit things that he knows and the reader, if the writer is writing truly enough, will have a feeling of those things as strongly as though the writer had stated them." Ernest Hemingway

More on the visit of the Muse

"I never have any idea, or never much of one, when I begin. Something sets off a spark, or drops down in me like a stone in a pond, and then the part of me that is a writer begins making a story out of it with all the obsessive unconscious steadiness of an oyster making a pearl. I write the story to find out what the story is. But then-and this is what so many writers forget to mention when talking about writing stories-once I have found out what it is, I go back through it all and back through it all, over and over, knowingly, shrewdly, calculatedly, like a surgeon looking at an X-ray. And when I'm fairly certain of the story, then I am looking again and again at the writing. Is it clear? Is it concrete? Is it mellifluous and seemingly effortless? Are the lines, as many of them as possible, accomplishing more than one thing? Are the emotions expressed as much as possible in things, and in the reactions to things? Is it visible? Palpable? My ambition, my hope, is to disappear into the writing, so that one reads a story and is incused by it, moved without quite knowing how or why, and with no idea at all what my opinions are about anything at all, much less anything in the story."  From an interview with Richard Bausch from failbetter.com. 

Three common misconceptions of the new or non-writer:

Reposted from November 11, 2008 because I love it so. (It's sad when you are in love with your own wit.  By that I mean I'm more than passing stuck on myself, I suppose.)

You've heard these things before, of course: The commentaries of those who have never written and yet feel that it is a simple task and that their ideas are the really precious thing about the writing process.  You may, in your neophyte ignorance, have thought that as well.  I know I was rolling around ectatically in my own naivte' merely a few years ago, before I began to take my writing seriously.

Well, let me share and hopefully dispel those common misconceptions.

Writing, the way non-writers think it is.

1. I HAVE THIS GREAT IDEA.  TELL YOU WHAT, YOU WRITE IT AND WE'LL SPLIT THE MONEY.  This is probably the #1 misconception of the non-writer.  Like the actual writer is totally indebted to you, the idea giver, like to God for the gift of your life.  Not.  It's only an idea.  See #2 below.
2. MY IDEA IS TOTALLY PRECIOUS AND I MUST NOT ALLOW ANYONE TO STEAL IT.  *Shifty eyes* "You're looking over my shoulder stealing my ideas, aren't you?" says Ms. Wannabe Writer.  Well, no, actually.  Hate to tell you Wannabe, but your ideas are probably already out there in someone else's writing.  And even if they are brand new and exciting, it's not the idea that makes the story, it's the writing.  It's always about the writing.
3. I HAVE THIS GREAT IDEA, WHICH I WILL SELL YOU. THEN I'LL WRITE THE PHENOMINAL STORY TO GO WITH IT.  Mmmkay.  Let's get this straight.  You must write the story before you sell it.   You might be able to try this with a screenplay, or if you are Ms. BigName Author (a la Nora Roberts) whom publishing houses court.  But you are not.  No, you are Mr. Wannabe Writer and you actually have to show a good piece of writing in order to get it published.  (Even my genius brother read a short story I sent him and said, "I've got this great idea I, too, should write." Then he proceeded to spell out the gist of the story and say, "It's a pretty good idea, and ought to be enough to get some interest.") NO!!!! You must write the story before you try and sell it.  

Writing, the way it really is.
Butt in chair.  Write words on paper or into a computer file.  Edit, edit, edit, and then edit some more.  Revision is all.  Then there's rejection with the requisite hurt feelings.  But you write because you enjoy it, don't you?

Well, let me share and hopefully dispel those common misconceptions.

Writing, the way non-writers think it is.

1. I HAVE THIS GREAT IDEA.  TELL YOU WHAT, YOU WRITE IT AND WE'LL SPLIT THE MONEY.  This is probably the #1 misconception of the non-writer.  Like the actual writer is totally indebted to you, the idea giver, like to God for the gift of your life.  Not.  It's only an idea.  See #2 below.
2. MY IDEA IS TOTALLY PRECIOUS AND I MUST NOT ALLOW ANYONE TO STEAL IT.  *Shifty eyes* "You're looking over my shoulder stealing my ideas, aren't you?" says Ms. Wannabe Writer.  Well, no, actually.  Hate to tell you Wannabe, but your ideas are probably already out there in someone else's writing.  And even if they are brand new and exciting, it's not the idea that makes the story, it's the writing.  It's always about the writing.
3. I HAVE THIS GREAT IDEA, WHICH I WILL SELL YOU. THEN I'LL WRITE THE PHENOMINAL STORY TO GO WITH IT.  Mmmkay.  Let's get this straight.  You must write the story before you sell it.   You might be able to try this with a screenplay, or if you are Ms. BigName Author (a la Nora Roberts) whom publishing houses court.  But you are not.  No, you are Mr. Wannabe Writer and you actually have to show a good piece of writing in order to get it published.  (Even my genius brother read a short story I sent him and said, "I've got this great idea I, too, should write." Then he proceeded to spell out the gist of the story and say, "It's a pretty good idea, and ought to be enough to get some interest.") NO!!!! You must write the story before you try and sell it.  

Writing, the way it really is.
Butt in chair.  Write words on paper or into a computer file.  Edit, edit, edit, and then edit some more.  Revision is all.  Then there's rejection with the requisite hurt feelings.  But you write because you enjoy it, don't you?

Learn Writing With Uncle Jim

Jane Smith at How Publishing Really Works blog has a great post about James D MacDonald and the ongoing discussions about writing.  She says it better than I (perhaps because this whole thing was news to me):

Six years ago today, a discussion called Learn Writing With Uncle Jim began on the Absolute Write message board. The Uncle Jim in question is SF writer James D Macdonald, who is perhaps better known as Yog, of Yog's Law fame. Learn Writing With Uncle Jim has now expanded into a second volume, and has grown into one of the most useful discussions about writing that there is.

If you write fiction then you will find things in it which will help you. If you write non-fiction, then you probably will too. If you're not sure it's for you, have a look at this partial index of the discussion and I'll bet that you'll find something there which interests you; if you'd like to read all of Mr Macdonald's posts without comments from other readers you can find them here; and if, confronted with all that linky goodness you find the discussion's length and detail a little daunting, just dip into it. Start reading. You'll soon see what I mean.

Let there be...action!

"Fiction is the stylized rendition of reality for an emotional effect." James Scott Bell

A while back, Merc Rants linked to the above quote and article about action scenes by James Scott Bell.  I hadn't run across this blog before, and there are a lot of great insights and useful tidbits to be found there.

Have fun trawling through the old posts!

"I don't give a sh*t"

"[A]bove all, in an ending, the reader/audience has to CARE. A good ending has an emotional payoff, and it has to be proportionate to what the character AND the reader/audience has experienced."  Alexandra Sokoloff

I highly recommend reading the linked post.  Ms. Sokoloff discusses why readers will accept your ending (if you do it right) and what you need in a climax/ending for them to be happy with your story and how you end it.  Basically, you have to give them an emotional payoff that takes into account things like who dies, who doesn't die, who suffers and transforms, do the characters suffer enough to make the catharsis of the ending/climax emotionally satisfying, etc.  (Not that she spells out all these things, but you can infer them readily enough from the text.)

And a reminder to please read and vote on the entries for the Chthulu-inspired Halloween Horror Contest.  Entries here.  Voting needs to be in by end of day, Monday, November 9th.  And please feel free to repost this information and/or mention the need for voters.  There are some great entries, and your horror-loving friends will thank you!

Your mystery's a joke (nyuk, nyuk!)

"A murder mystery is like a joke. In both cases, the storyteller sets up a situation, carefully leads the audience down a false path only to deliver a big twist at the end. We know we're being duped, and we go along willingly, happily even! That gap between expectation and delivery touches some deep and primal sense of human enjoyment.

With a joke, the gap is a twist of words ('Nope, I'm a frayed knot'), of situation ('Shut up and keep swimming') or perception ('But this one's eating my popcorn!'). With a mystery, the twist is finding out who the *real* killer is, and why. In both cases, the storyteller is deliberately lying to the audience, and the audience is happy to go along with the lie."   Steve Malley, his Full Throttle & F*** It blog

And a reminder to please read and vote on the entries for the Chthulu-inspired Halloween Horror Contest.  Entries here.  Voting needs to be in by end of day, Monday, November 9th.  And please feel free to repost this information and/or mention the need for voters.  There are some great entries, and your horror-loving friends will thank you!

How do you learn to write?

"[H]ow I learn is subliminal, I guess you could say.  I just sort of absorb it like you learn language as a baby.  Then the light bulb pops on for the "Oh, of course!" moment and I congratulate myself on being so wise and chug along again until the next mini-epiphany!...But you never stop having the epiphanies.  I think that's because any artistic pursuit involves context and intent so intimately with the braiding together of technique and ideas.  Very complex, just like conducting a full orchestra--with cannon!"  Me

Natasha Fondren (Spyscribbler) asked a question in her blog the other day about how we all learn to write.  I liked what I said about  my process, so I'm sharing it here. 

Check out the many interesting and insightful comments here.

And a reminder to please read and vote on the entries for the Chthulu-inspired Halloween Horror Contest.  Entries here.  Voting needs to be in by end of day, Monday, November 9th.  And please feel free to repost this information and/or mention the need for voters.  There are some great entries, and your horror-loving friends will thank you!

"Lots of people write too long--I think it's about 6 times as common as writing too short--so you must not feel alone in this. In almost all of these cases, it's excess wordage in a sentence, not excess plot or excess character development, that leads to the the bulk... Unfortunately, whittling writing down to the bare necessities takes a lot of practice and, in 98% of cases, a second pair of (ruthless) eyes who can help point out your personal bulky passages. If you're striking what you see as important material, my question is can you take what's important and say it in fewer words." Moonrat

I heart you, Moonie.  I do that.  Most of us do, and I imagine even highly experienced writers still do it, too.   (But I bet they spot the dross faster and probably hit the delete key more frequently as they are doing the first draft). I have that (strong) tendency myself.  I look through any given draft and find a zillion instances of little 'tellings' as I like to call them, bits of prose telling the reader what's going on, or--most commonly--telling the reader what the character's thinking or feeling.  These little asides feel to me as I'm putting the reader in the character's pov more securely, more into their headspace; but in reality it's really just telling in an inelegant and club-like fashion. 

P.S. Don't forget to vote for the Chthulu horror-writing contest winner...you also get a shot at winning one of two copies of "Child of Fire" just for voting.  And there's a separate contest for "Child of Fire" in the post here.

Nano updates

Well, I'm behind but not behinder.  Meaning, I still haven't been getting my 1,666 words a day, but I'm improving, lol.

One observance of this getting-back-into-writing process for me is that I tell myself that things I love to do (writing, art, whatever) are a bother; that I don't wanna.  Whatever is that destructive, non-accomplishing lazybones inside of us that does this?  The Will To Fail, if you will?  WTF is up with that?  When we were kids, we did what we enjoyed; but now we start thinking ourselves out of doing them for dumb reasons, like "it's too much effort,"  "I don't have time," "My feel hurt," "But my family needs my attention, too," or "Oooh!  Shiny" (that last seems to be my personal favorite if you substitute 'internet' for 'shiny.' )

Point being, that exhiliaration of doing something fun that you enjoyed seems to have been mired in a bunch of negative clutter.  Our socialization and stressors keep us from doing the purely fun.  And it's not difficult to have fun; just like it isn't difficult to smile.  But sometimes you forget to do it.

So NaNoWriMo for me this year is all about relearning to love my hobby, the avocation for which I mostly abandoned so many other things I enjoy because I love to write more. 

And I dropped below 200 pounds, which really made my week, let me tell you.  I still have a lot of weight to lose, but I feel pretty darned good.
 

The Bad Boy

Natalie Whipple has a great post today on her blog about Bad Boys and Cheerleaders and why kids (all of us?) are so attracted.  Particularly noteworthy as a reminder for those of us who are *ahem* older and havent been crazy nuts over boys and never-been-kissed in, like, several decades. 

The Bad Boy is really a symbol. He stands for the mystery and unattainable quality that ALL boys seem to have when you're a teen girl. Just like the Hot Cheerleader is that symbol of unattainable for teen boys.

I remember all too well how guys seemed to be this whole other creature when I was younger, like we weren't even the same species. And it felt like if I could just crack the code, then maybe I'd get their attention...maybe one would like me. Because I sure liked them, except I didn't really have any idea why other than the fact that they were all so cute. Having a boyfriend was like the ultimate status symbol; it meant you cracked the guy code. Or something like that.

That is the center of the Bad Boy trope—girl unlocks the mysterious guy code and thereby obtains the ever-coveted Boyfriend. It gives girls hope that love is attainable, and that is why it's such an effective plot.

She goes on to talk about things to think about using the bad boy trope, and it's fun and makes good sense.  Go read the whole thing and bookmark it if you, like me, are having to unclog the dust bunnies around your teenage angst.  (Generally, I'm glad for the dust bunnies; but when you want to write YA, you need to have some sort of clue about boy/girl dynamics...right?  Am I right?  [Is there an echo in here?])

A laudable goal and a cool tool

"I have a goal: to write a shitty first draft...“But,” I hear you say, “That makes no sense. Shouldn’t your goal be to write a really excellent fist draft?”...No, that’s actually a problem for me [because], with fiction, you have to get it on the page.  Agonizing over sentence structure or whether you already used this adjective two paragraphs ago will prevent you from ever getting to the end.  As will blocking issues – was my hero sitting or standing? Did he already put down/pick up his drink? Or even things like the names of secondary characters—if you’re checking back to see what the bartender’s name was the last time your characters were n this night club, you’re not WRITING."  Deadline Dames blog post

That sums up why NaNoWriMo is a good thing for me.  Besides, even if totally self-imposed, the whole NaNo flurry of activity creates a sense of deadline pressure and motivation that is very inspiring.  

It's the hardest discipline in writing: to not have discipline in writing!  Because getting that first draft down to The End is KEY.  And yet, many of us have that inner perfectionist editor that wants it all perfect now.  There has to be a happy medium, and learning to write a crappy first draft is a step in the right direction!  IMO anyhow.

And a proposal:  Virtual write ins?  Blogger pals supporting each other during NaNo?
I'm considering starting a small blog ring to track a group of blog friends in their NaNo efforts this year.  If you want to play along, tell me so in the comments.  Because for some of us (me, specifically) it's not possible due to location or time constraints to make it to any of the physical write-ins.  We can thus have a virtual write in on a blog (with live comments to track how much progress, for example) and perhaps even an honor-system forfeiture to aid motivation?.

If you want to play along, say so.  I will start a blog and we can track our progress with daily progress meters like I have on the current blog.  We can have virtual write ins, we can have mini contests (prize being bragging rights.)  Basically, we can support each others efforts, and not just via geographic region, but here in an online forum that doesn't take anything away from the great NaNo site.  The baby blog is here.  I've sent out a few invitations to it as well.  Let me know if you want to join in!

Also, cool writing tool:  Dr. Wicked's Write or Die.  Liana Brooks mentions it in her blog post yesterday, and being typically the last to hear about things, I hadn't heard what the NaNoites are all abuzz over.  Anyhow, "Write or Die" is a web-based tool where you write in teh box, and depending on your settings, you get varying negative reinforcements for ceasing to write before your word count goal is reached for the session.  You can have gentle mode (a pop up warns you after a certain length of time), or normal mode (you hear an unpleasant sound) or kamikaze mode, which will start erasing what you have already written.

If those consequences don't help you train yourself to just write and not think too much, nothing will.

*I'm cheating, not starting a new project.  Goddess knows I don't need another dangling story start.