A lot of Christian authors have tried to dip into sci-fi or fantasy, usually with poor results. You don't walk into a Christian bookstore looking for sci-fi or other specialist books; it's simply not done.
So although many Christians read sci-fi or fantasy, the market is a dead one.
http://www.marcherlordpress.com/Home.htm
Now these fellows come along.
It's an untapped market. These people are out there, the readers, the writers. Connecting them together has been hard. Making the connection is beyond hard.
As a writer, I've always assumed that to put my religion into my books I would have to side-step. Because if you want to be published in science fiction, you can't write a Christian novel, and if you want to be published by a Christian house you can't write sci-fi. So my only choice was to pick one main theme (for me, sci-fi) and never explicitly reference Christianity, while at the same time making it my main point.
To wit, redemption, sacrifice, and faith are my biggest themes throughout. The sinner coming to redemption. Laying down your life for another. Trusting in something bigger.
All this without EVER using the words sacrifice, redemption, or faith. Or even hinting at them! I'm so very crafty that friends who are Christian read my manuscripts and don't see it, don't understand what I've put in.
Very strange.
So I've chosen my path... and here comes a new publishing house that could bust that all open.
Wow.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Nanowrimo
Another year, another Wrimo behind us. This year we had even more winners than last year--including at least one 'I can't believe she made it!'
A couple of things went right, a couple of things went not-so-right. As I've mentioned (frequently) my office was a mess last month, with new initiative, everything being broken, and everything being all-hands-on-deck emergency mode. So even when I was away from work I was feeling stressed, which is NOT the way to write.
What went right? Well, when I was writing, I was more productive than in previous years. I was able to get more writing that FELT good out in shorter time. Probably because I was trying harder to craft a story I wanted to tell in the pre-season game; and the experience of previous years helped too.
This year also saw some first-time winners (which is always a great thing).
One big part of the weirdness that was the month of November was the weirdness of being a homeowner. You know how sometimes something will break and it's somebody else's problem? When you're the homeowner, there's no such thing. If it's broken you have to find a way to fix it... you have to find a workaround till it can be fixed... you have to take responsibility.
Responsibilities equal no writing time.
Fortunately, I was once again able to procure time off Thanksgiving week. Without that, I have serious doubts I would have made it. According to my little charts I was barely keeping my head above the 1667 line before then--and that by pushing so hard I was hardly sleeping! The kind-heartedness of my employers for the month of November never ceases to amaze me.
...and remember, there are no losers in Wrimo. One girl I know may not have made it, but she does have 3145 words written she probably would not have written otherwise. And that's a start, isn't it?
A couple of things went right, a couple of things went not-so-right. As I've mentioned (frequently) my office was a mess last month, with new initiative, everything being broken, and everything being all-hands-on-deck emergency mode. So even when I was away from work I was feeling stressed, which is NOT the way to write.
What went right? Well, when I was writing, I was more productive than in previous years. I was able to get more writing that FELT good out in shorter time. Probably because I was trying harder to craft a story I wanted to tell in the pre-season game; and the experience of previous years helped too.
This year also saw some first-time winners (which is always a great thing).
One big part of the weirdness that was the month of November was the weirdness of being a homeowner. You know how sometimes something will break and it's somebody else's problem? When you're the homeowner, there's no such thing. If it's broken you have to find a way to fix it... you have to find a workaround till it can be fixed... you have to take responsibility.
Responsibilities equal no writing time.
Fortunately, I was once again able to procure time off Thanksgiving week. Without that, I have serious doubts I would have made it. According to my little charts I was barely keeping my head above the 1667 line before then--and that by pushing so hard I was hardly sleeping! The kind-heartedness of my employers for the month of November never ceases to amaze me.
...and remember, there are no losers in Wrimo. One girl I know may not have made it, but she does have 3145 words written she probably would not have written otherwise. And that's a start, isn't it?
Monday, November 26, 2007
Winner, winner...
You know, the picture pretty much says it all. This month, I wrote. I wrote a lot. Maybe not all at once... maybe it wasn't all pretty... but I wrote. And I enjoyed it. And at the end of the month, I had the word count. I had the huge honking word count.
It's a good feeling. Even if it's not ready to publish... it's a step in the right direction. It's a feeling of joy and happiness.
It's NANOWRIMO.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Nanowrimo
I am an unabashed Wrimoer. I plan to take two weeks off in November to write me a novel. I plan to spend that time in a dreamy, heavenly state of productivity, with at least 3,000 words a day. I plan to write about characters so heavy on details that it thrills me to write.
So, let me just say in advance... suckers!
If anybody here has never written a novel in a month, let me tell you... it's not entirely beyond you. It's doable. It may be crap; most people's first novels are crap. And their second one. It's only when you get a good deal of them under your belt that you start to improve, after all. Practice, and all that.
This is a way to let loose the flood of words. If you have nothing at the end of the book but a book of crap, it is a victory. Because next year you'll have a better idea how to make a good book. Next year you can talk about your first manuscript, and how it failed, and why it failed. You'll understand more about plotting, and characters and all the good stuff.
There is no way to improve without practice, and this one month may be the best practice. There is support, there is community, there is LIFE in Wrimo.
Signup has begun. Are you in or out?
NATIONAL NOVEL WRITING MONTH STARTS IN: 21 days!
So, let me just say in advance... suckers!
If anybody here has never written a novel in a month, let me tell you... it's not entirely beyond you. It's doable. It may be crap; most people's first novels are crap. And their second one. It's only when you get a good deal of them under your belt that you start to improve, after all. Practice, and all that.
This is a way to let loose the flood of words. If you have nothing at the end of the book but a book of crap, it is a victory. Because next year you'll have a better idea how to make a good book. Next year you can talk about your first manuscript, and how it failed, and why it failed. You'll understand more about plotting, and characters and all the good stuff.
There is no way to improve without practice, and this one month may be the best practice. There is support, there is community, there is LIFE in Wrimo.
Signup has begun. Are you in or out?
NATIONAL NOVEL WRITING MONTH STARTS IN: 21 days!
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
A staple of my childhood has ended...
For Better or For Worse took the big plunge; and it was a tiny 'tip-tap.'
Lynn Johnston went into semi-retirement, turning her strip into a retrospective hybrid, with some new strips, and all her characters stopped aging. This marks the end of the strip, since the aging, the growth, was always the big thing. (even other comic strips that age their characters rarely have the kind of character growth seen in FBOFW)
Towards the end there was massive reader backlash towards what was essentially a 'happy ending.' Lynn decided to close up shop by stepping back and putting a tidy ending to every character, something that didn't ring true to the organic strip as it had been written.
Still, all in all, this was one of the best comic strips of the last 30 years. I say that with all deference to Scott Adams, who captured the zany illogical madness of living in CUBE-land. Scott Adams perfectly showed us one moment in time in one place. Lynn showed us thirty years and many places.
That's success. Not the realms of people who love it, but the haters. When they care enough to hate, you've won. When they care enough to say, 'hey, this isn't as good as it USED to be,' that means you had some very real qualities they loved.
May I one day be hated so much.
Lynn Johnston went into semi-retirement, turning her strip into a retrospective hybrid, with some new strips, and all her characters stopped aging. This marks the end of the strip, since the aging, the growth, was always the big thing. (even other comic strips that age their characters rarely have the kind of character growth seen in FBOFW)
Towards the end there was massive reader backlash towards what was essentially a 'happy ending.' Lynn decided to close up shop by stepping back and putting a tidy ending to every character, something that didn't ring true to the organic strip as it had been written.
Still, all in all, this was one of the best comic strips of the last 30 years. I say that with all deference to Scott Adams, who captured the zany illogical madness of living in CUBE-land. Scott Adams perfectly showed us one moment in time in one place. Lynn showed us thirty years and many places.
That's success. Not the realms of people who love it, but the haters. When they care enough to hate, you've won. When they care enough to say, 'hey, this isn't as good as it USED to be,' that means you had some very real qualities they loved.
May I one day be hated so much.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Ugh! The poorest story-telling of all...
What is the poorest story-telling of all? The worst form, the failure beyond all others?
When the audience misses what you said so much that you have to go back and EXPLAIN IT ALL TO THEM IN A VOICEOVER.
Seriously. There is nothing worse than this. And I don't mean your work has to strive to be inaccessible, or that you shouldn't worry whether or not your readers are getting it. But the solution is not to bottle-feed them.
Case in point; For Better Or For Worse.
This comic strip never used to explain itself. It didn't have to. It spoke a universal language gracefully.
However, recently the readers began complaining in large numbers that she was abandoning them, that her work was really, um, betraying the characters, and that she was forcing the worst kind of deus ex machina into the story.
So in the last week Elizabeth went to see her old friend Candace and DIRECTLY ADDRESSED what the readers were saying.
Is there anything wrong with addressing what the readers say? No, not at all. In fact, some of what she said did ease the accusations a little bit. She helped us see the pressure that Anthony's ex-wife was under from her family. She helped us see why Anthony would fall for him.
But the direct nature of the voiceover, the very unsubtle way she went about it... well, it was a lot like being slapped in the face. She stepped outside the story to do this. She didn't SHOW us; she TOLD us.
Show; don't tell. That's the essence of good story-telling.
When the audience misses what you said so much that you have to go back and EXPLAIN IT ALL TO THEM IN A VOICEOVER.
Seriously. There is nothing worse than this. And I don't mean your work has to strive to be inaccessible, or that you shouldn't worry whether or not your readers are getting it. But the solution is not to bottle-feed them.
Case in point; For Better Or For Worse.
This comic strip never used to explain itself. It didn't have to. It spoke a universal language gracefully.
However, recently the readers began complaining in large numbers that she was abandoning them, that her work was really, um, betraying the characters, and that she was forcing the worst kind of deus ex machina into the story.
So in the last week Elizabeth went to see her old friend Candace and DIRECTLY ADDRESSED what the readers were saying.
Is there anything wrong with addressing what the readers say? No, not at all. In fact, some of what she said did ease the accusations a little bit. She helped us see the pressure that Anthony's ex-wife was under from her family. She helped us see why Anthony would fall for him.
But the direct nature of the voiceover, the very unsubtle way she went about it... well, it was a lot like being slapped in the face. She stepped outside the story to do this. She didn't SHOW us; she TOLD us.
Show; don't tell. That's the essence of good story-telling.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Storytelling made easy...
So you want to be an author, eh? The next King, the next Rowling, the next person to tell that too-compelling too-mysterious story?
Let's take a test.
Forget grammar, forget metaphor. Forget characters. Forget everything else. This isn't a test of how well you know the tools of the trade; there's plenty of time for that later. Right now you need to remember the last time you told somebody a story.
Any story. A joke. A touching anecdote. How your day went at work.
Don't punish yourself according to whether they were moved, whether they got it, or even what kind of story it was. Right now we're trying to figure out something else entirely, something very important.
Did you enjoy telling the story?
I assume you did. What did you enjoy? Was it being the center of attention? Was it the way you led them through it? Was it the payoff? What is so compelling about telling somebody else your story that makes you want to do it?
For me, it's all about the immersion. When somebody else gets so close to your story that they care about the characters... for me, that's magical.
What about you?
Let's take a test.
Forget grammar, forget metaphor. Forget characters. Forget everything else. This isn't a test of how well you know the tools of the trade; there's plenty of time for that later. Right now you need to remember the last time you told somebody a story.
Any story. A joke. A touching anecdote. How your day went at work.
Don't punish yourself according to whether they were moved, whether they got it, or even what kind of story it was. Right now we're trying to figure out something else entirely, something very important.
Did you enjoy telling the story?
I assume you did. What did you enjoy? Was it being the center of attention? Was it the way you led them through it? Was it the payoff? What is so compelling about telling somebody else your story that makes you want to do it?
For me, it's all about the immersion. When somebody else gets so close to your story that they care about the characters... for me, that's magical.
What about you?
Monday, August 20, 2007
Switching horses in the middle of the road....
There's nothing like the feeling of juggling projects. (see last post) And nothing kills productivity like the switch from one project to another. Humans aren't really great multitaskers. If you're at work and you check your e-mail, it takes you fifteen minutes to get back in groove of whatever you were doing before that. Fifteen minutes.
Yes. There is research.
How much more so with a project? I'm a big fan of grabbing it and sticking with it till it's done. When that doesn't work... well, you'll have a week of refamiliarizing yourself with characters and places, the plot, etc. A week to get back into the atmosphere so you can write properly. A week.
Rush that and you'll regret it.
Trust me. :)
Yes. There is research.
How much more so with a project? I'm a big fan of grabbing it and sticking with it till it's done. When that doesn't work... well, you'll have a week of refamiliarizing yourself with characters and places, the plot, etc. A week to get back into the atmosphere so you can write properly. A week.
Rush that and you'll regret it.
Trust me. :)
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Define horrible realization.
So, I was talking to a friend. She confessed to having three or four current unfinished novel projects on her plate. I laughed, and said I had four too.
Then I opened my computer, and counted.
ELEVEN!! Twelve if you count the one I sorta finished but haven't found a publisher for yet.
Gosh!
Then I opened my computer, and counted.
ELEVEN!! Twelve if you count the one I sorta finished but haven't found a publisher for yet.
Gosh!
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
One percent!
Walk into an average bookstore and look around. Guess how many of the authors of the books you see make their living by writing books? Just take a guess?
One percent.
Not one percent of all writers. One percent of the successes, one percent of all the people who got published by a major publisher, who made it to the big time, who are doing good! One percent of the big time writers!
That means the vast majority of writers, even if they are a success, have a day job. They toil. They work. (source: an unnamed industry source, as quoted by Randy Ingermanson in his latest blog)
If that prospect right there is enough to shake your faith in writing, you need to get out. Seriously. This is no business for the faint-hearted. If you really want to write you need to be prepared for endless drudgery that will never pay off. Seeing your words in type, knowing at least one person loved them... that needs to be enough for you.
If it's not, you need to go into some other profession. Somewhere they actually do reward your faithful efforts.
One percent.
Not one percent of all writers. One percent of the successes, one percent of all the people who got published by a major publisher, who made it to the big time, who are doing good! One percent of the big time writers!
That means the vast majority of writers, even if they are a success, have a day job. They toil. They work. (source: an unnamed industry source, as quoted by Randy Ingermanson in his latest blog)
If that prospect right there is enough to shake your faith in writing, you need to get out. Seriously. This is no business for the faint-hearted. If you really want to write you need to be prepared for endless drudgery that will never pay off. Seeing your words in type, knowing at least one person loved them... that needs to be enough for you.
If it's not, you need to go into some other profession. Somewhere they actually do reward your faithful efforts.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
For Better or For Worse
Would it shock you if I told you that I used to really like For Better or For Worse? It's true. What other strip blended sentimentality and schlock so well with humor and a brisk, biting taste of real life, and hid right on the funny pages? What other funny page comic could interest you like that, could take a month to wrap up a good scene and keep your attention? Well, Calvin, obviously.
But Lynn Johnston was a master of the craft. I loved the slow growth of her characters, and I loved the realistic plotting and pacing. It felt like a comic that was really, truly great.
Not so much these days.
The sudden about-face to put Liz and Anthony together has been schlocky without the bite of real life. The return home for Liz was contrived. The plotting feels like...plotting. After the great and more subtle stuff that's come before--such as Gordo's romance, which was hilarious, felt spontaneous, and was completely character-driven--this is just a disappointment.
Lessons to be learned from this?
Just because you've grown to love the characters that much is no excuse. Your readers still expect top-notch writing and the same steely-eyed treatment you gave the readers when the characters were young. Now is not the time to gloss over their faults, or to rewrite them.
PS: One ray of sunshine throughout has been April. April is a brat. She has always been a brat. An ungrateful, nasty little thing. And Lynn has gone out of her way to show April the right way in obvious and overly preachy ways--but April still remains the same character, essentially. She babysteps her way better. She proclaimed in a recent strip that although she knew she had nothing to complain about, she'd find something.
In a way, April has remained the best and most real part of the strip. A teenager to the core. Her reactions to the unsubtle life lessons have been the best part of the strip for a while. Her 'band' has been an excuse to preach, one she keeps telling us she doesn't appreciate either.
In short, LJ has been true to the character. Keep being true to that one character, and there's still hope for the strip.
But Lynn Johnston was a master of the craft. I loved the slow growth of her characters, and I loved the realistic plotting and pacing. It felt like a comic that was really, truly great.
Not so much these days.
The sudden about-face to put Liz and Anthony together has been schlocky without the bite of real life. The return home for Liz was contrived. The plotting feels like...plotting. After the great and more subtle stuff that's come before--such as Gordo's romance, which was hilarious, felt spontaneous, and was completely character-driven--this is just a disappointment.
Lessons to be learned from this?
Just because you've grown to love the characters that much is no excuse. Your readers still expect top-notch writing and the same steely-eyed treatment you gave the readers when the characters were young. Now is not the time to gloss over their faults, or to rewrite them.
PS: One ray of sunshine throughout has been April. April is a brat. She has always been a brat. An ungrateful, nasty little thing. And Lynn has gone out of her way to show April the right way in obvious and overly preachy ways--but April still remains the same character, essentially. She babysteps her way better. She proclaimed in a recent strip that although she knew she had nothing to complain about, she'd find something.
In a way, April has remained the best and most real part of the strip. A teenager to the core. Her reactions to the unsubtle life lessons have been the best part of the strip for a while. Her 'band' has been an excuse to preach, one she keeps telling us she doesn't appreciate either.
In short, LJ has been true to the character. Keep being true to that one character, and there's still hope for the strip.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Still not done Harry Potter, but a few notes on metaphor..
This morning I realized that my entire story so far, the one I'm working on, is an externalization of the the protagonist's internal conflict. I.e., the whole story is shockingly personal. It might as well all be in his head. (and the main foil, and the hero... the other two big characters)
This works. For starters, it pushes this entire story BEYOND formula. I couldn't just keep writing stories about these people, endless sequels; they grow. They change. As I wrote, eventually they would change so much that they would be unrecognizable. Besides that, there's a clear beginning and end to their lives.
Because the conflict is an externalized form of their internal conflicts, the entire book obviously centers around the demons that haunt them, and their worst enemy remains themselves. I have no big, over-arching villain in my books; my heroes are the villains. They are a world unto themselves.
It's all rather awesome, actually.
I realized a while back that the first novel I ever finished was trash. The reason? The action was fake and artificial, just things happening to the main characters. It had nothing to do with their internal conflicts, if they ever even had internal conflicts. I had one character morbidly obsessed with one thing suddenly turn and go a different way. I had a villainous character turn heroic.
Only one part of that book was any good, and it was a subplot I glossed over rather quickly.
If I go back and rewrite it, I'll change the action to mirror the internal conflict. I'll give the characters real growth, instead of focusing on how I need to set them up for the big finale and the sequel. That should make it a book worth reading.
This works. For starters, it pushes this entire story BEYOND formula. I couldn't just keep writing stories about these people, endless sequels; they grow. They change. As I wrote, eventually they would change so much that they would be unrecognizable. Besides that, there's a clear beginning and end to their lives.
Because the conflict is an externalized form of their internal conflicts, the entire book obviously centers around the demons that haunt them, and their worst enemy remains themselves. I have no big, over-arching villain in my books; my heroes are the villains. They are a world unto themselves.
It's all rather awesome, actually.
I realized a while back that the first novel I ever finished was trash. The reason? The action was fake and artificial, just things happening to the main characters. It had nothing to do with their internal conflicts, if they ever even had internal conflicts. I had one character morbidly obsessed with one thing suddenly turn and go a different way. I had a villainous character turn heroic.
Only one part of that book was any good, and it was a subplot I glossed over rather quickly.
If I go back and rewrite it, I'll change the action to mirror the internal conflict. I'll give the characters real growth, instead of focusing on how I need to set them up for the big finale and the sequel. That should make it a book worth reading.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
NOTHING NEW TO REPORT--EVER!!!
We now take a pause. I'm going to go home and read Harry Potter aloud to my younger sibling and my mother (she's so spoiled rotten...).
During this time, I will be lucky to write five words.
Fortunately, when I finish an HP book I'm majorly juiced up from all the creativity I've been absorbing. It makes the wheels in my head spin.
Wingardium leviosa!
During this time, I will be lucky to write five words.
Fortunately, when I finish an HP book I'm majorly juiced up from all the creativity I've been absorbing. It makes the wheels in my head spin.
Wingardium leviosa!
Friday, July 20, 2007
Writing difficult and/or technical bits
I came to a part in my novel recently that was hard to write. Very hard to write. Once I slogged through it, it was also hard to read. Also, it was inconsistent. And the details were all wrong.
Any part of a novel that is hard to write is also easy to screw up. This goes for all writing. The hard parts are where you need to stop. Stop, think, all that good stuff. Rewrite. There's a lot of rewriting in good work; if you don't have to rewrite it, it may not be that good.
Everybody hates rewriting. It's even worse trying to get technical details straight, or trying to put together believable scenes.
But completely essential.
Some tips.
It's never really done, but at some point you're just spinning your wheels. Move on, and come back only when you have an idea of how it could be better.
Research it. Find somebody else to talk about it with. When in doubt, just plain remove it.
Get away from your computer screen and think about this. I like to sketch, a lot. I like to put pencil to paper and see my character, and imagine what's going on. You need to somehow get this in your mind's eye. Imagine it's a movie; anything! Just imagine how it must go. The right way for it to go.
Any part of a novel that is hard to write is also easy to screw up. This goes for all writing. The hard parts are where you need to stop. Stop, think, all that good stuff. Rewrite. There's a lot of rewriting in good work; if you don't have to rewrite it, it may not be that good.
Everybody hates rewriting. It's even worse trying to get technical details straight, or trying to put together believable scenes.
But completely essential.
Some tips.
It's never really done, but at some point you're just spinning your wheels. Move on, and come back only when you have an idea of how it could be better.
Research it. Find somebody else to talk about it with. When in doubt, just plain remove it.
Get away from your computer screen and think about this. I like to sketch, a lot. I like to put pencil to paper and see my character, and imagine what's going on. You need to somehow get this in your mind's eye. Imagine it's a movie; anything! Just imagine how it must go. The right way for it to go.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Vanished off the face of the planet...
Wow, it's been a while. Mood? Stressed. Not too bad, but I'm on the run. (and hungry like a wolf....)
I'm working as a programmer now, on a mainframe database that was first built when I was less than two years old. Even for a baby like me (only a quarter of a century!), that's kind of dating the system. I'm working like a dog on this, trying to catch up with the other programmers.
Also, did I mention I wrote a play, I'm going to be acting a minor part in it, and trying to work out my creative differences with the director? Yeah, she and I end up clashing a lot, and I'm kind of a jerk on my good days. Worse, she's a good friend, and I really don't want to start trouble--we have trouble-makers in the cast who jump on any friction as a good time to drag the play down. By drag down I mean goof off during rehearsals, skip rehearsals, etc. So I'm trying to present a united front while also giving voice to my ideas. It means being a balanced, mature individual and keeping the dialog civil. I hate doing that. It makes me feel old.
Also, buying the house is proceeding on schedule.
Also, the director of my play is tapping me to write, film and edit a documentary in my spare time. (ha ha ha!)
And, in case that's not enough, there's my writing. (oh, woe!)
All this personal update is just to let you know why I'm feeling a little rushed for breath. So, for writing, let's talk about the Fantastic Four movie, what was wrong, what was right, why fans are unsatisfied, and why they shouldn't be.
First of all; what was wrong? Well, bad writing. I'm analyzing this movie as a writer, for writers, so let's all be honest. If you find yourself in a position where you need a plot twist to make the movie go better, and that convenient plot twist involves a battle in the air, that's nice. If it's so convenient it'll make people's teeth hurt, it's too much. If it involves science and the best you can do is some technobabble that's so unconvincing nobody buys it, you've wasted your time. Also, if you have a villain everybody loves, somebody seminally evil, don't you think you owe it to yourself to give them enough screen time to really, really shine?
What was right? Well, the writers did a couple of things I approve of. First of all, they ignored the Thing. The first movie was his; he didn't need further development. They focused on developing the character who needed the most growth, the hot-headed Johnny Storm. We need to remember that it's our most flawed characters who are the most interesting, who have the most potential for change, for reflection. The ones that are written in stone (ha! pun!) don't need it. Secondly, the writers focused on the sad tragedy of the Silver Surfer in exactly the right ways. Thirdly, they did develop Dr Doom in such a way that you got to know just a little more about him--just a little. A castle in Latveria? A quest for power? A hankering for revenge? Tastes, nothing more. If they come back for a third movie, they better pay that off with some big Doom.
Why are fans unsatisfied? Because they want more Superman, more Batman, more X-Men, and FF has never been about those. This is a story about a family. A family under siege in every way. A family that needs to figure out what being celebrities means for their lives, and needs to save the world. This is more sit-com than superhero. This is more about Sue's relationship with Reed than the end of the world. The Fantastic Four comic books have always known this.
By the by; my favorite Fantastic Four comic book? The one-shot about a PR man brought in to 'reboot' their image. All throughout the guy is confused as to why he's there, and Sue accuses Johnny of bringing him on board because he's a showboater. Johnny is, of course, offended, as he didn't bring him on. The dude is expecting super heroes, and finds a family. He's surprised. Most of them don't want the public eye, but here they are, center stage.
Cut to the end of the comic book. Reed is all along with his child, making faces. Ever the absent-minded jokester. (I think it's Franklin, as a baby, but I might be wrong) He says, "let me tell you a story. Once upon a time there was a very smart man..." His story stops, and for a second we see torment on his face. He starts over. "Once upon a time there was a very stupid man, and he turned his friends and family into monsters, into freaks. And he knew that if they tried to hide from the world like mutants that his friends would be hated and feared, that they could never live normal lives. He knew that the only way they could ever have anything close to normal lives ever again was to push them into the public eye, to make people love them. It might be hard, but love is better than hate; so he bought a very big building, and put them in silly costumes, and did everything he could to make sure that the world knew that these were heroes, not villains, and that they were good people. And he hopes that maybe someday he'll be able to make up for what he's done to them." He stops there and stares into the distance. "Maybe."
To me, that was the best comic ever. It cuts right to the root of it. Are these people to be feared? No. They want everybody to know they're just a family trying to save the world.
That's why this movie works, in my humble opinion. A smaller, more personal scope; a fun, family-oriented super-hero movie; and, of course, a more personal movie.
Naysayers may say what they like. I know this is no Spiderman, no Batman, but it's not supposed to be. This is something all its own, something true to the original.
That's what writers need to do. You don't need to copy the successful formula. You need to find the core, the message that is all your own, the sensibility that's all your own. You need to let it loose, fling it out there. You need to be true to that core message. You need to be... dare I say it? You need to be fantastic.
I'm working as a programmer now, on a mainframe database that was first built when I was less than two years old. Even for a baby like me (only a quarter of a century!), that's kind of dating the system. I'm working like a dog on this, trying to catch up with the other programmers.
Also, did I mention I wrote a play, I'm going to be acting a minor part in it, and trying to work out my creative differences with the director? Yeah, she and I end up clashing a lot, and I'm kind of a jerk on my good days. Worse, she's a good friend, and I really don't want to start trouble--we have trouble-makers in the cast who jump on any friction as a good time to drag the play down. By drag down I mean goof off during rehearsals, skip rehearsals, etc. So I'm trying to present a united front while also giving voice to my ideas. It means being a balanced, mature individual and keeping the dialog civil. I hate doing that. It makes me feel old.
Also, buying the house is proceeding on schedule.
Also, the director of my play is tapping me to write, film and edit a documentary in my spare time. (ha ha ha!)
And, in case that's not enough, there's my writing. (oh, woe!)
All this personal update is just to let you know why I'm feeling a little rushed for breath. So, for writing, let's talk about the Fantastic Four movie, what was wrong, what was right, why fans are unsatisfied, and why they shouldn't be.
First of all; what was wrong? Well, bad writing. I'm analyzing this movie as a writer, for writers, so let's all be honest. If you find yourself in a position where you need a plot twist to make the movie go better, and that convenient plot twist involves a battle in the air, that's nice. If it's so convenient it'll make people's teeth hurt, it's too much. If it involves science and the best you can do is some technobabble that's so unconvincing nobody buys it, you've wasted your time. Also, if you have a villain everybody loves, somebody seminally evil, don't you think you owe it to yourself to give them enough screen time to really, really shine?
What was right? Well, the writers did a couple of things I approve of. First of all, they ignored the Thing. The first movie was his; he didn't need further development. They focused on developing the character who needed the most growth, the hot-headed Johnny Storm. We need to remember that it's our most flawed characters who are the most interesting, who have the most potential for change, for reflection. The ones that are written in stone (ha! pun!) don't need it. Secondly, the writers focused on the sad tragedy of the Silver Surfer in exactly the right ways. Thirdly, they did develop Dr Doom in such a way that you got to know just a little more about him--just a little. A castle in Latveria? A quest for power? A hankering for revenge? Tastes, nothing more. If they come back for a third movie, they better pay that off with some big Doom.
Why are fans unsatisfied? Because they want more Superman, more Batman, more X-Men, and FF has never been about those. This is a story about a family. A family under siege in every way. A family that needs to figure out what being celebrities means for their lives, and needs to save the world. This is more sit-com than superhero. This is more about Sue's relationship with Reed than the end of the world. The Fantastic Four comic books have always known this.
By the by; my favorite Fantastic Four comic book? The one-shot about a PR man brought in to 'reboot' their image. All throughout the guy is confused as to why he's there, and Sue accuses Johnny of bringing him on board because he's a showboater. Johnny is, of course, offended, as he didn't bring him on. The dude is expecting super heroes, and finds a family. He's surprised. Most of them don't want the public eye, but here they are, center stage.
Cut to the end of the comic book. Reed is all along with his child, making faces. Ever the absent-minded jokester. (I think it's Franklin, as a baby, but I might be wrong) He says, "let me tell you a story. Once upon a time there was a very smart man..." His story stops, and for a second we see torment on his face. He starts over. "Once upon a time there was a very stupid man, and he turned his friends and family into monsters, into freaks. And he knew that if they tried to hide from the world like mutants that his friends would be hated and feared, that they could never live normal lives. He knew that the only way they could ever have anything close to normal lives ever again was to push them into the public eye, to make people love them. It might be hard, but love is better than hate; so he bought a very big building, and put them in silly costumes, and did everything he could to make sure that the world knew that these were heroes, not villains, and that they were good people. And he hopes that maybe someday he'll be able to make up for what he's done to them." He stops there and stares into the distance. "Maybe."
To me, that was the best comic ever. It cuts right to the root of it. Are these people to be feared? No. They want everybody to know they're just a family trying to save the world.
That's why this movie works, in my humble opinion. A smaller, more personal scope; a fun, family-oriented super-hero movie; and, of course, a more personal movie.
Naysayers may say what they like. I know this is no Spiderman, no Batman, but it's not supposed to be. This is something all its own, something true to the original.
That's what writers need to do. You don't need to copy the successful formula. You need to find the core, the message that is all your own, the sensibility that's all your own. You need to let it loose, fling it out there. You need to be true to that core message. You need to be... dare I say it? You need to be fantastic.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Heros and villains
A villain is often different from a hero only in that they have a fallacious world view.
I turn now to the great movie Serenity...
When Book urges Mal to 'believe in something... I don't care what, just believe!', it feels like the rallying cry of the movie. You can do great things if you believe! If you believe in people, in God, you can get through, you can get it done!
Problem: the Operative is the True Believer here, not Mal or Book. He believes in the justice and rightness of his cause, and it enables him to do great things. Awesome things. He can pull together a fleet, he can track down threats to this world, he can force Mal's hand. He can do almost anything. He can slaughter people.
He has awesome power.
But... (big word, eh?) his belief is in something fallacious. His belief undermines itself. His belief is almost completely wrong. His belief is in something that we know is in fact monstrous. The Alliance, although it is great in the sense that it does BIG things, is terrible. It does great ill. His ideas are flawed.
Belief enables us, but a belief in something wrong puts us in a position to do terrible things.
The Operative is the worst kind of bad guy. A man who has thought, a man who is reasoned. A complete character capable of the worst brutality because he knows it's for a greater good. He is Mal, if Mal believed in the Alliance. He is Book. He is the greatest character, with a flaw in his reasoning making him more monster than man.
All villains should be like him. Full of powerful emotions. Full of power and ability. With one little flaw in their reasoning, a poison pill that destroys them.
I turn now to the great movie Serenity...
When Book urges Mal to 'believe in something... I don't care what, just believe!', it feels like the rallying cry of the movie. You can do great things if you believe! If you believe in people, in God, you can get through, you can get it done!
Problem: the Operative is the True Believer here, not Mal or Book. He believes in the justice and rightness of his cause, and it enables him to do great things. Awesome things. He can pull together a fleet, he can track down threats to this world, he can force Mal's hand. He can do almost anything. He can slaughter people.
He has awesome power.
But... (big word, eh?) his belief is in something fallacious. His belief undermines itself. His belief is almost completely wrong. His belief is in something that we know is in fact monstrous. The Alliance, although it is great in the sense that it does BIG things, is terrible. It does great ill. His ideas are flawed.
Belief enables us, but a belief in something wrong puts us in a position to do terrible things.
The Operative is the worst kind of bad guy. A man who has thought, a man who is reasoned. A complete character capable of the worst brutality because he knows it's for a greater good. He is Mal, if Mal believed in the Alliance. He is Book. He is the greatest character, with a flaw in his reasoning making him more monster than man.
All villains should be like him. Full of powerful emotions. Full of power and ability. With one little flaw in their reasoning, a poison pill that destroys them.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
So, therefore...
If every character thinks they're the main character then they will have motivations. Possibly heroic ones turned sour, or revenge, or whatever. But you need each character to come together as a fully formed character by giving them a complete story.
However, this puts you in a quandary. What do you do when you realize that your villain really does have a better reason than the hero, and was the good guy all along? After all, your hero did kill his father, even if accidentally.
Well, maybe you just wrote a book that blurs the lines and shows some reality about revenge. A book that has a greater moral point than just a shoot 'em up.
Once you start giving each character their own life a complexity arises that you may not be ready to handle. A wonderful complexity that is vibrant and joyful.
Seriously.
However, this puts you in a quandary. What do you do when you realize that your villain really does have a better reason than the hero, and was the good guy all along? After all, your hero did kill his father, even if accidentally.
Well, maybe you just wrote a book that blurs the lines and shows some reality about revenge. A book that has a greater moral point than just a shoot 'em up.
Once you start giving each character their own life a complexity arises that you may not be ready to handle. A wonderful complexity that is vibrant and joyful.
Seriously.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Every character is their own hero.
This is a blatant ripoff of another person's blog post, but it was so true I had to share it.
Every character in your novel thinks the story is about them.
Think about this, Star Wars style.
Han knows he's the hero. The macho man who charges in, gun in hand, to save the day and the girl? Even if he's only in it for the paycheck, he's the hero.
Chewie knows he's the hero. The soft-spoken powerhouse who is a great, supportive friend? Oh, yeah.
Leia knows she's the hero. The plucky gal leading a rebellion, with no time for friends or love because she's so driven?
Darth Vader thinks he's the hero. The tragic figure who loses his wife in his fight to restore order to the galaxy.
Palpatine thinks he's the hero. A thinking/philosopher who has put away an outdated form of government to put in a new one that is more powerful and more unified, with no senseless debate.
Jabba knows he's the hero. He knows it. He's just trying to survive in this world, and have some fun along the way.
Every character in your novel thinks the story is about them.
Think about this, Star Wars style.
Han knows he's the hero. The macho man who charges in, gun in hand, to save the day and the girl? Even if he's only in it for the paycheck, he's the hero.
Chewie knows he's the hero. The soft-spoken powerhouse who is a great, supportive friend? Oh, yeah.
Leia knows she's the hero. The plucky gal leading a rebellion, with no time for friends or love because she's so driven?
Darth Vader thinks he's the hero. The tragic figure who loses his wife in his fight to restore order to the galaxy.
Palpatine thinks he's the hero. A thinking/philosopher who has put away an outdated form of government to put in a new one that is more powerful and more unified, with no senseless debate.
Jabba knows he's the hero. He knows it. He's just trying to survive in this world, and have some fun along the way.
Monday, June 4, 2007
Reader expectations
Imagine for a minute that you've written a book with an incredibly complicated character. Now imagine you're writing a sequel, and the only thing that makes sense to you is to have them be featured much less in the sequel, despite the eventual furor the fans will make.
At some point the commercial concerns of selling the book and satisfying the readers takes precendence over artistic vision. If you believe otherwise, you're going to starve. Plain and simple.
How far do you go? Do you toss away your entire vision of the book to make it fit into other people's dreams? Do you obey every whim of the shippers, and match up the characters, no matter how out of character it is for them?
My favorite examples are, of course, the responsive television shows. Shows where a bad guy of the week can show up, captivate audiences, and win themselves a continuing starring role. Shows where a bad guy can be so compelling the audience demands they continue to be the bad guy... and they do.
Conversely, what about too responsive shows? Shows that drop characters fans hate. Shows that change mid-step to keep up with fan opinion. Shows that are so responsive the fans might as well be writing them. Call it fanservice, or call it spinelessness; your artistic vision is ruined. Is what you create then better or worse than your original vision? It could go either way, but it's no longer truly yours, and that's what we're really looking for, isn't it? Something to call ours. Something nobody else can claim.
At some point the commercial concerns of selling the book and satisfying the readers takes precendence over artistic vision. If you believe otherwise, you're going to starve. Plain and simple.
How far do you go? Do you toss away your entire vision of the book to make it fit into other people's dreams? Do you obey every whim of the shippers, and match up the characters, no matter how out of character it is for them?
My favorite examples are, of course, the responsive television shows. Shows where a bad guy of the week can show up, captivate audiences, and win themselves a continuing starring role. Shows where a bad guy can be so compelling the audience demands they continue to be the bad guy... and they do.
Conversely, what about too responsive shows? Shows that drop characters fans hate. Shows that change mid-step to keep up with fan opinion. Shows that are so responsive the fans might as well be writing them. Call it fanservice, or call it spinelessness; your artistic vision is ruined. Is what you create then better or worse than your original vision? It could go either way, but it's no longer truly yours, and that's what we're really looking for, isn't it? Something to call ours. Something nobody else can claim.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Subtlety and stringing out the reader
How long do I wait before dropping the bomb? How long does it take before I reveal that a character is secretly pregnant? Or should the readers know all along, while it's the husband who's in the dark?
Well, that's complicated.
Still, it's not good to make them wait so long that they become frustrated and their heads explode. Also, if you're giving hints, it's not good if they're too oblique to be understood.
Still, if you want to be like Timothy Pratchett and draw it out until the end of the book, you can do that. He always withholds just one crucial piece. One little thing that's so bloody important. If you're smart, you can guess it.
Still. Not all of us are Terry Pratchett (bask in his brilliance). And he keeps his stories short on purpose; too much longer and we'd be over-taxed by it. We know the end and the satisfying twist will come soon. And we know it WILL be satisfying, not a let-down. (mine are sometimes let-downs)
Well, as I struggle with this, I've learned this much; you can't drag some things out more than three chapters into the book. If you don't let on by then at least some hint of what's really going on, you're in big trouble.
Well, that's complicated.
Still, it's not good to make them wait so long that they become frustrated and their heads explode. Also, if you're giving hints, it's not good if they're too oblique to be understood.
Still, if you want to be like Timothy Pratchett and draw it out until the end of the book, you can do that. He always withholds just one crucial piece. One little thing that's so bloody important. If you're smart, you can guess it.
Still. Not all of us are Terry Pratchett (bask in his brilliance). And he keeps his stories short on purpose; too much longer and we'd be over-taxed by it. We know the end and the satisfying twist will come soon. And we know it WILL be satisfying, not a let-down. (mine are sometimes let-downs)
Well, as I struggle with this, I've learned this much; you can't drag some things out more than three chapters into the book. If you don't let on by then at least some hint of what's really going on, you're in big trouble.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Names
Rule one: if you're writing fantasy and your character is named Trrrryygo'r'dn'yynnllith, you're working it too hard start again.
Seriously.
Rule two: do look up the name of your character, and the entyomology of it; but you don't need to tell the reader, not unless it's part of your story, or part of some natural dialogue. If you say 'and this man, Stephen Michael, whose first name means crowned one and whose second name means who is like unto God, and which is the name of an archangel, he was good-looking,' if you say anything NEARLY like that, you need to seriously consider taking some classes.
Subtlety is the rule.
You tell your reader what they need to know. Imply the rest. They'll love you for it.
At least, I love authors like that.
Seriously.
Rule two: do look up the name of your character, and the entyomology of it; but you don't need to tell the reader, not unless it's part of your story, or part of some natural dialogue. If you say 'and this man, Stephen Michael, whose first name means crowned one and whose second name means who is like unto God, and which is the name of an archangel, he was good-looking,' if you say anything NEARLY like that, you need to seriously consider taking some classes.
Subtlety is the rule.
You tell your reader what they need to know. Imply the rest. They'll love you for it.
At least, I love authors like that.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
How long can you string a reader out without giving them that crucial piece of information?
Isn't it frustrating when you're watching a TV show and you realize they're simply NEVER going to come to the point and tell you what's what? Like Lost or Alias, which strings the viewer out forever. Or even some of the shows I love. (just what WAS the preacher's mysterious background? What kind of background could Book possibly be running from--was he an assassin? A soldier?)
I once wrote a book where one of the crucial pieces of information was that the bad guy was the good guy's brother. I just never told anybody, though. Not even the reader. It was subtle. It was between the lines. It was a joy to write.
It never made sense to anybody else.
It was a work of art, all right. And a complete muddle to everybody who read it, who didn't understand what was going on, why there were all these mixed feelings, why it was so bittersweet. Why the whole thing was falling apart.
In a book that had nothing else subtle about it, this subtle stroke was much too much. Would a revelatory scene at the end fix it? I doubt it! Then you'd be left feeling as if you needed to reread it to understand it, and it was so dry and boring nobody would want that.
So I'm rewriting it with the reveal in the middle, and significant foreshadowing. That's a lot better, a lot easier to take. A lot easier to read.
How much is too much? Some more thoughts on this later.
I once wrote a book where one of the crucial pieces of information was that the bad guy was the good guy's brother. I just never told anybody, though. Not even the reader. It was subtle. It was between the lines. It was a joy to write.
It never made sense to anybody else.
It was a work of art, all right. And a complete muddle to everybody who read it, who didn't understand what was going on, why there were all these mixed feelings, why it was so bittersweet. Why the whole thing was falling apart.
In a book that had nothing else subtle about it, this subtle stroke was much too much. Would a revelatory scene at the end fix it? I doubt it! Then you'd be left feeling as if you needed to reread it to understand it, and it was so dry and boring nobody would want that.
So I'm rewriting it with the reveal in the middle, and significant foreshadowing. That's a lot better, a lot easier to take. A lot easier to read.
How much is too much? Some more thoughts on this later.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Job woes...
Okay, which is worse for writing:
A job you hate that pays little in a field you're not entirely comfortable in.
A job you love that pays better in a field you love.
Answer: number 2.
Why? Because if you love the work, you're gonna pull OT. You're gonna pay attention at work and not think about your book. You're going to challenge yourself. Push yourself. Work yourself.
In short; I got a new job. (shhhh! Everyone will want one)
It's back to programming for me. Wading through code. Loving it. Reading it.
And it's going to kill all my free time. All my ability to do the things I love so much. All the time that I write during.
But how can I complain, getting to go back to my first love, back to programming? I am so conflicted over this! Happy and sad, gleeful and miserable. I'll be the first to admit this is what I've been trying to do since I got here. Now, I'm doing it! Yay! Only it's going to kill me.
A job you hate that pays little in a field you're not entirely comfortable in.
A job you love that pays better in a field you love.
Answer: number 2.
Why? Because if you love the work, you're gonna pull OT. You're gonna pay attention at work and not think about your book. You're going to challenge yourself. Push yourself. Work yourself.
In short; I got a new job. (shhhh! Everyone will want one)
It's back to programming for me. Wading through code. Loving it. Reading it.
And it's going to kill all my free time. All my ability to do the things I love so much. All the time that I write during.
But how can I complain, getting to go back to my first love, back to programming? I am so conflicted over this! Happy and sad, gleeful and miserable. I'll be the first to admit this is what I've been trying to do since I got here. Now, I'm doing it! Yay! Only it's going to kill me.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Threequels
Do I get to do movie reviews on here? Oh, wait. It's a blog! I get to do whatever I want!
Ah, creative freedom!
So I went to see Spiderman 3 the other night. Never before have I been so solidly kicked in the face and the butt at the same time. Never before have I had such mixed feelings about a movie.
A few things of note.
First of all, visually, this was the best movie ever made. The fight sequences made the Matrix look like a couple of sissies standing around and slapping at each other. I mean, when Peter and Harry took it to the air and fought, it was so sharp, so Silver Age, I wanted to cry. (even Scott Kurtz, who hated the movie, admitted that the moment when Peter was swinging around that tower firing web balls at Harry moved him)
Secondly, visually, I never believed they could pull Venom off. A big hulking version of Spiderman with a gaping maw and pointy teeth? No way. It would look silly!
It didn't look silly.
And emo-Spidey! I was expecting them to pull it seriously, to act like he really was all that with black hair down in his eyes. To act like we were supposed to be afraid of that. Instead, they made it hilarious. I have no words for how funny that was.
And Bruce Campbell made his best cameo yet as a French waiter. I mean, French. Capital F. He stole his scene with pizaaz.
And now, the negative news.
In terms of character development this movie was bogged down and constipated. It inched. It missed its marks. It threw away some great moments and replaced them with mediocre moments. For every great shot they threw in something less convincing. (JJJ was, of course, awesome; even better than last movie, and he ROCKED last movie)
Here's the thing. Sub-par superhero movies are slow and have too little plot. S3 went the other way. It overloaded the plot. It INUNDATED you with plot. There was so much, and so little time.
BTW, I was unsure as to how the final fight would go. The trailers let us know that Spidey was going to have to team up with a villain to fight two villains. "I need your help." That was a given.
But every single villain in this movie has been played sympathetically. Everybody knows Venom hates Spidey, but doesn't really hate other people. He can be an okay guy. Everybody knows Sandman is a good guy... he's just had some bad luck. And Harry? Everybody knows Harry is Pete's friend, even if he hates him now.
You could have gone any way you liked with it.
Incidentally, speaking of awesome visual effects; let's give a shout out to the team that made Sandman, shall we? The scene where he first pulls himself together is nothing short of magical. The pests I saw the movie with, who wouldn't stop laughing and talking, even shut up for that scene. And Thomas Haden Church is such a great actor (sigh)... he pulled it off. The Sandman was terrific.
Basically; this movie needed more time. It had great ideas, great concepts, but they rushed production. They didn't give it the time and development it needed.
It's a shame.
It's still better than any other franchise. S3 blew away anything in FF (at least the first one), any X-Men movie, anything Super. It just blew it away.
Sam Raimi's low point, his bad day, is still better than anything the competition is putting out.
So I'm completely divided on this movie. I KNOW it's flawed. I KNOW they could do better. I KNOW Gwen Stacy's role was wasted (although Bryce was certainly looking good... basically, I looked at her bottled blonde hair and Kirsten Dunst's bottled red hair, and I really wished they could switch places). I KNOW Topher Grace should have said 'we' at least once.
It was a good movie, but it could have great.
Well, here's hoping FF2 blows me away as much as S3 did.
Ah, creative freedom!
So I went to see Spiderman 3 the other night. Never before have I been so solidly kicked in the face and the butt at the same time. Never before have I had such mixed feelings about a movie.
A few things of note.
First of all, visually, this was the best movie ever made. The fight sequences made the Matrix look like a couple of sissies standing around and slapping at each other. I mean, when Peter and Harry took it to the air and fought, it was so sharp, so Silver Age, I wanted to cry. (even Scott Kurtz, who hated the movie, admitted that the moment when Peter was swinging around that tower firing web balls at Harry moved him)
Secondly, visually, I never believed they could pull Venom off. A big hulking version of Spiderman with a gaping maw and pointy teeth? No way. It would look silly!
It didn't look silly.
And emo-Spidey! I was expecting them to pull it seriously, to act like he really was all that with black hair down in his eyes. To act like we were supposed to be afraid of that. Instead, they made it hilarious. I have no words for how funny that was.
And Bruce Campbell made his best cameo yet as a French waiter. I mean, French. Capital F. He stole his scene with pizaaz.
And now, the negative news.
In terms of character development this movie was bogged down and constipated. It inched. It missed its marks. It threw away some great moments and replaced them with mediocre moments. For every great shot they threw in something less convincing. (JJJ was, of course, awesome; even better than last movie, and he ROCKED last movie)
Here's the thing. Sub-par superhero movies are slow and have too little plot. S3 went the other way. It overloaded the plot. It INUNDATED you with plot. There was so much, and so little time.
BTW, I was unsure as to how the final fight would go. The trailers let us know that Spidey was going to have to team up with a villain to fight two villains. "I need your help." That was a given.
But every single villain in this movie has been played sympathetically. Everybody knows Venom hates Spidey, but doesn't really hate other people. He can be an okay guy. Everybody knows Sandman is a good guy... he's just had some bad luck. And Harry? Everybody knows Harry is Pete's friend, even if he hates him now.
You could have gone any way you liked with it.
Incidentally, speaking of awesome visual effects; let's give a shout out to the team that made Sandman, shall we? The scene where he first pulls himself together is nothing short of magical. The pests I saw the movie with, who wouldn't stop laughing and talking, even shut up for that scene. And Thomas Haden Church is such a great actor (sigh)... he pulled it off. The Sandman was terrific.
Basically; this movie needed more time. It had great ideas, great concepts, but they rushed production. They didn't give it the time and development it needed.
It's a shame.
It's still better than any other franchise. S3 blew away anything in FF (at least the first one), any X-Men movie, anything Super. It just blew it away.
Sam Raimi's low point, his bad day, is still better than anything the competition is putting out.
So I'm completely divided on this movie. I KNOW it's flawed. I KNOW they could do better. I KNOW Gwen Stacy's role was wasted (although Bryce was certainly looking good... basically, I looked at her bottled blonde hair and Kirsten Dunst's bottled red hair, and I really wished they could switch places). I KNOW Topher Grace should have said 'we' at least once.
It was a good movie, but it could have great.
Well, here's hoping FF2 blows me away as much as S3 did.
Monday, May 14, 2007
RL woes...
Checking in briefly during lunch break. I'm at an all day training today--learning stuff I already know.
Yeah, more boring than watching glue dry.
Yeah, more boring than watching glue dry.
Friday, May 11, 2007
My voice
A good author has a great voice, one easy to identify and powerful. Stephen King has a voice that's unmistakable. So does CJ Cherryh. A voice isn't about having a great story to tell; when we say 'they have a great voice' we mean they have the tools, the command of the craft, necessary to tell a great story in a great way.
Do I have the tools? The literary voice? Do I? Do you?
The first measure of that is how long it takes you to write a sentence. Do you dash a sentence out and run on, never stopping to read it back and consider whether you've used enough creepy words, whether it gets the information across clearly and cogently? In short, is this a conscious process, or are you just writing down the first thing that comes to mind?
I plead guilty of the latter, all too often.
Okay, I've failed there. Next; are you writing something that would fit in a newspaper, a cold analysis of what happened that isn't using words like weapons? Your words are your weapons. Some words are cold and impersonal. "John hit the guard." That doesn't have any ring at all to it. "John smashed the guard's face." All I change is the words, and it gives you a completely different image. Not only that, it's more information. You can't tell in that first one whether John managed to do a good job of it. Maybe it was a girly punch; you can't tell. When John smashes him, you know for sure exactly what happened.
I'm getting better at a command of the words. A little bit.
Finally, and most importantly, are you showing them the stuff you talk about? Or telling them? "Mitch saw a spaceship fly by, and it was the coolest thing he'd ever seen." Wow, that's nice. You told us that Mitch was awed, and the spaceship was cool. How about a few words on what that means? "The silvery streak of the spaceship moved contrary to every law of phsyics, and Mitch's eyes popped open." I included a color, a movement (albeit a boring one) and an action on Mitch's part. I didn't call it cool, and I didn't call him awed, but you get the idea anyway.
And I'm sure you can think of a million better ways to show the readers he was awed.
If you just tell the readers how awed Mitch was, they don't feel it. They may know it, but they don't feel it. And they didn't enjoy it much. Show them, and they will love you forever.
Show; don't tell.
I know, this is hard. All we do with words is tell, right? The best authors, the ones who are remembered, are the ones who create images with those words. The ones who write vividly, so that we're sure we know what the character looked like, even though there were no pictures, no images. Just words.
I'm not sure how well I do that.
Do I have the tools? The literary voice? Do I? Do you?
The first measure of that is how long it takes you to write a sentence. Do you dash a sentence out and run on, never stopping to read it back and consider whether you've used enough creepy words, whether it gets the information across clearly and cogently? In short, is this a conscious process, or are you just writing down the first thing that comes to mind?
I plead guilty of the latter, all too often.
Okay, I've failed there. Next; are you writing something that would fit in a newspaper, a cold analysis of what happened that isn't using words like weapons? Your words are your weapons. Some words are cold and impersonal. "John hit the guard." That doesn't have any ring at all to it. "John smashed the guard's face." All I change is the words, and it gives you a completely different image. Not only that, it's more information. You can't tell in that first one whether John managed to do a good job of it. Maybe it was a girly punch; you can't tell. When John smashes him, you know for sure exactly what happened.
I'm getting better at a command of the words. A little bit.
Finally, and most importantly, are you showing them the stuff you talk about? Or telling them? "Mitch saw a spaceship fly by, and it was the coolest thing he'd ever seen." Wow, that's nice. You told us that Mitch was awed, and the spaceship was cool. How about a few words on what that means? "The silvery streak of the spaceship moved contrary to every law of phsyics, and Mitch's eyes popped open." I included a color, a movement (albeit a boring one) and an action on Mitch's part. I didn't call it cool, and I didn't call him awed, but you get the idea anyway.
And I'm sure you can think of a million better ways to show the readers he was awed.
If you just tell the readers how awed Mitch was, they don't feel it. They may know it, but they don't feel it. And they didn't enjoy it much. Show them, and they will love you forever.
Show; don't tell.
I know, this is hard. All we do with words is tell, right? The best authors, the ones who are remembered, are the ones who create images with those words. The ones who write vividly, so that we're sure we know what the character looked like, even though there were no pictures, no images. Just words.
I'm not sure how well I do that.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Awesome and cool means difficult and impossible
There is an correlation between how hard something is and how awesome it is. If you want to write an awesome and cool book you have to slave at it. It took me a good five years to produce a book that I didn't hate. (that's just the production of the book itself, not the failed projects that came before it)
Everybody is after the quick and easy fix. Nobody wants to hear me say 'you need to take more time on your grammar.' Or, worse, ' you need to work on your voice.'
So many aspiring authors have no idea what a literary voice is, or how to develop it. I'll give you a hint; it rhymes with WORK.
Usually it involves writing. Your voice is your style, the way you express yourself that is unique. Some twist of phrase, some way of doing things that's different. CJ Cherryh is a great example. Nobody writes quite like she does. Critics might say 'who would want to,' but the truth is that everybody wants to be like her. That is, published, known, praised. This despite the sometimes boring machinations and politics she dabbles with, the overly ambitious novels with anticlimatic endings, the trivial way she deals with most topics... (can you tell I'm a big fan? Oh, yeah, I am)
But the journey as she takes you through a story that any author could screw up is always great. If you summed up her stories, the synopsis is boring. I can't even read the summaries of her stories any more; it's just painful.
But she builds, with words, a world so real it hurts sometimes. She builds characters that speak with their own voice, and she uses her words carefully and viciously. She gets in your head, and hangs on tenaciously, using that voice, that particular way of putting things, to stay there.
That's what an author's voice should do.
More on my own voice later.
Everybody is after the quick and easy fix. Nobody wants to hear me say 'you need to take more time on your grammar.' Or, worse, ' you need to work on your voice.'
So many aspiring authors have no idea what a literary voice is, or how to develop it. I'll give you a hint; it rhymes with WORK.
Usually it involves writing. Your voice is your style, the way you express yourself that is unique. Some twist of phrase, some way of doing things that's different. CJ Cherryh is a great example. Nobody writes quite like she does. Critics might say 'who would want to,' but the truth is that everybody wants to be like her. That is, published, known, praised. This despite the sometimes boring machinations and politics she dabbles with, the overly ambitious novels with anticlimatic endings, the trivial way she deals with most topics... (can you tell I'm a big fan? Oh, yeah, I am)
But the journey as she takes you through a story that any author could screw up is always great. If you summed up her stories, the synopsis is boring. I can't even read the summaries of her stories any more; it's just painful.
But she builds, with words, a world so real it hurts sometimes. She builds characters that speak with their own voice, and she uses her words carefully and viciously. She gets in your head, and hangs on tenaciously, using that voice, that particular way of putting things, to stay there.
That's what an author's voice should do.
More on my own voice later.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Too ambitious
The worst projects are the ambitious ones that you don't QUITE have the talent to pull off. Like a little community theater project turning into a full-blown musical when you KNOW you have a handful of good singers, a couple of fair singers, and nowhere near the amount of time to forge it into a work.
Or, worse, trying to write the script for an hour-long play in one sitting. Ambitious; but futile.
All that gets you are frustrations.
I am that ambitious man. I read a few graphic novels and went out and plotted in my mind this vicious little graphic novel with wizards and magicians and demons. It was epic, and yet intensely personal. It was about growing up, and killing one's friends. (well, that's really allegorical in nature)
I have just enough art skills to draw the sketches for the first run through the script. I can't draw nearly well enough to even put together a basic low-rent copy of this thing. I mean, I CAN'T.
But it still niggles at me, and I still work to complete the script. To pull all these complex characters together to the ending that must happen.
Ambitious? You have no idea. Overwrought and overdone? Incredibly so.
I'm like that with all of my projects. I set impossibly high goals, I kill myself trying to achieve them, and then I cry about how hard it is. I set myself against five projects at once and complain I'm spinning my wheels because no single project is getting done. It can't! It's timesharing with all the others!
Of course, this is also the way I work best. This way when I get sick of one incredibly bleak character and just can't write another word about how they plan to kill their parents I can just jump back to another story and start writing a character who might be happy right now. (probably not)
So, there are upsides and downsides.
I think that in the next few months I will focus entirely on one story. One book. One...
Just the thought makes me shiver. And how to choose? Go with the fan favorite, or the one that I think needs the most work? The one closest to done? Or the one with the most developed characters?
I need to think hard about that.
Most people focus on one project and it keeps them sane. I'll try it, but it sounds like a recipe for insanity. How can I ever let go of my other projects?
Or, worse, trying to write the script for an hour-long play in one sitting. Ambitious; but futile.
All that gets you are frustrations.
I am that ambitious man. I read a few graphic novels and went out and plotted in my mind this vicious little graphic novel with wizards and magicians and demons. It was epic, and yet intensely personal. It was about growing up, and killing one's friends. (well, that's really allegorical in nature)
I have just enough art skills to draw the sketches for the first run through the script. I can't draw nearly well enough to even put together a basic low-rent copy of this thing. I mean, I CAN'T.
But it still niggles at me, and I still work to complete the script. To pull all these complex characters together to the ending that must happen.
Ambitious? You have no idea. Overwrought and overdone? Incredibly so.
I'm like that with all of my projects. I set impossibly high goals, I kill myself trying to achieve them, and then I cry about how hard it is. I set myself against five projects at once and complain I'm spinning my wheels because no single project is getting done. It can't! It's timesharing with all the others!
Of course, this is also the way I work best. This way when I get sick of one incredibly bleak character and just can't write another word about how they plan to kill their parents I can just jump back to another story and start writing a character who might be happy right now. (probably not)
So, there are upsides and downsides.
I think that in the next few months I will focus entirely on one story. One book. One...
Just the thought makes me shiver. And how to choose? Go with the fan favorite, or the one that I think needs the most work? The one closest to done? Or the one with the most developed characters?
I need to think hard about that.
Most people focus on one project and it keeps them sane. I'll try it, but it sounds like a recipe for insanity. How can I ever let go of my other projects?
Monday, May 7, 2007
Quick post today
Just thought I'd share this.
Scam? Photoshop? Experimental aircraft? Aliens? Yeah, whatever. It's awful pretty, that's all I'm saying.
Almost enough to get me over my fear of flying.
Almost.
A real post tomorrow, hopefully.
Scam? Photoshop? Experimental aircraft? Aliens? Yeah, whatever. It's awful pretty, that's all I'm saying.
Almost enough to get me over my fear of flying.
Almost.
A real post tomorrow, hopefully.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Seat of the pants versus planning
There are two bodies of thought regarding planning your book out in a careful and precise way and plotting and outlining it.
Do. Or don't.
Pretty simple, no? :)
Put simply, most people plan their novel. They have the theme, then they add chapters. They know ahead of time that in chapter 16 the spaceship crashes. They know when Darth Vader will reveal things to Luke. They know.
Or, there's the seat of the pants people. Like me.
I usually have a vague idea when I start writing what'll happen. I know Darth is Luke's father, but I'm not sure if he'll tell him, or if the reader will know, or why anybody is hiding it. I just know that Luke hates Darth, while Darth is kind of proud of his kid for being so darned mean to him. I mean, come on, who doesn't want to see their kid blow up the Death Star, even if it's YOUR Death Star? I know Darth is conflicted. I know he's a whiny baby pretending to be a big, tough man.
What else do I know?
Well, not much, really. Let's write!
And it flows out, and when halfway through Luke actually starts to have a bright idea, instead of squishing it because he's not supposed to have it yet I let him go with it. To me, that makes sense.
I tried writing a really structured book once. I planned out every scene, how it would advance, what would happen.
It was plotted very well. By which I mean, everything happened in just the way that it needed to, and we got to the end when I had planned. In between? Sometimes I had to make my characters idiots. Sometimes they acted out of character. Because, let's face it, I never did give them any real reason to do that.
I'm done writing that way.
I'm rewriting that book now, Seat of My Pants. And I got to a crucial scene where before the male lead fell for the female lead... and he's not there. Instead, this time through, he's going to try to KILL her.
What? Well, it's where his motivations are. It's where he is at this point. It's what makes sense. Not only that, it puts some real tension between them instead of the faked up little tension I had before. It puts them at odds. It makes their later romance a little more twisted, a little harder, a little less likely. It really sets a tone for the book that's a lot darker.
How will we avoid having him kill her at this point? How will they reconcile? Darned if I know. But this also provides her with a much-needed impetus to turn on her own father, since this is his fault. This drives the whole book forward, with a much-needed burst of energy and life.
And it just makes sense.
Maybe planning and careful plotting could have solved this the first time around, but I live and love my characters too much. I drive them forward with a methodical attention to what they're doing and why, and to me that makes them so much more real.
And I know what happens in the end. I know that both characters are attracted to each other despite their initial hatred. I know that both characters have a growing respect for each other's fighting ability. I know that this will end badly, and eventually kill both of them.
I'll be darned if I can ever stop flying by the seat of my pants!
Do you plan and plot, or do you fly by the seat of your pants?
Do. Or don't.
Pretty simple, no? :)
Put simply, most people plan their novel. They have the theme, then they add chapters. They know ahead of time that in chapter 16 the spaceship crashes. They know when Darth Vader will reveal things to Luke. They know.
Or, there's the seat of the pants people. Like me.
I usually have a vague idea when I start writing what'll happen. I know Darth is Luke's father, but I'm not sure if he'll tell him, or if the reader will know, or why anybody is hiding it. I just know that Luke hates Darth, while Darth is kind of proud of his kid for being so darned mean to him. I mean, come on, who doesn't want to see their kid blow up the Death Star, even if it's YOUR Death Star? I know Darth is conflicted. I know he's a whiny baby pretending to be a big, tough man.
What else do I know?
Well, not much, really. Let's write!
And it flows out, and when halfway through Luke actually starts to have a bright idea, instead of squishing it because he's not supposed to have it yet I let him go with it. To me, that makes sense.
I tried writing a really structured book once. I planned out every scene, how it would advance, what would happen.
It was plotted very well. By which I mean, everything happened in just the way that it needed to, and we got to the end when I had planned. In between? Sometimes I had to make my characters idiots. Sometimes they acted out of character. Because, let's face it, I never did give them any real reason to do that.
I'm done writing that way.
I'm rewriting that book now, Seat of My Pants. And I got to a crucial scene where before the male lead fell for the female lead... and he's not there. Instead, this time through, he's going to try to KILL her.
What? Well, it's where his motivations are. It's where he is at this point. It's what makes sense. Not only that, it puts some real tension between them instead of the faked up little tension I had before. It puts them at odds. It makes their later romance a little more twisted, a little harder, a little less likely. It really sets a tone for the book that's a lot darker.
How will we avoid having him kill her at this point? How will they reconcile? Darned if I know. But this also provides her with a much-needed impetus to turn on her own father, since this is his fault. This drives the whole book forward, with a much-needed burst of energy and life.
And it just makes sense.
Maybe planning and careful plotting could have solved this the first time around, but I live and love my characters too much. I drive them forward with a methodical attention to what they're doing and why, and to me that makes them so much more real.
And I know what happens in the end. I know that both characters are attracted to each other despite their initial hatred. I know that both characters have a growing respect for each other's fighting ability. I know that this will end badly, and eventually kill both of them.
I'll be darned if I can ever stop flying by the seat of my pants!
Do you plan and plot, or do you fly by the seat of your pants?
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Some other dude's e-zine
I just signed up for a writing e-zine. Advanced Fiction Writing, by Randy Ingermanson. It's pretty cool. I'd link you to it and get money for it, but I'm not signed up to do that, so you can just go find him on your own and I'll get nothing. It's cool. I'm used to it. (you wouldn't have coughed up the money for the expensive one anyway, admit it!)
He's the Snowflake Method Guy.
Anyway, he has some good advice. A lot of interesting insights, time management advice, and even advice for beating writer's block. I'm a seat-of-my-pants writer, and I'm always unsatisfied with my endings. He has advice for that, too.
Check him out.
He's the Snowflake Method Guy.
Anyway, he has some good advice. A lot of interesting insights, time management advice, and even advice for beating writer's block. I'm a seat-of-my-pants writer, and I'm always unsatisfied with my endings. He has advice for that, too.
Check him out.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Rejection!
First things first.
http://www.ralan.com/
That is an AWESOME site. They maintain a listing of fantasy and science fiction publishers--and even some other publishers--letting you know the rates you can expect, what kind of submissions they want, and even how long it takes these folks to reply. I wish I'd checked them before; I submitted twice to Tor fantasy. They take forever to respond. This time I cherry-picked one that replies much earlier. Very nice.
Did I mention I submitted to Tor fantasy? A new novel, but again, not the novel they were looking for. (sigh)
I loved Tor Fantasy's old FAQ page. It's informative and nice, especially for noobs like me. It's gone now, unfortunately, but it included this little gem.
"How can I increase my chances of getting my book published?"
"Well, write a book we'll like. We aren't going to accept a book we don't like just because we haven't bought anything in a while, and we won't turn away a book we like because of market pressures. If you're not sure if it's perfect for us, send it in. We might like it, we might not. It's worth a try."
It was an honest attempt to let you know that it's a subjective process. The right author, the right publisher, the right time.
My time is not now.
How do you avoid the feeling that you have been slapped in the face by the meaty hand of editors everywhere when that form letter comes to let you know that you aren't good enough, that you, personally, are a failure, and a horrible person? To let you know that YOU STINK?
You can't, really. You just have to move on to another publisher, consider how well you're selling your work, and consider options. Find a smaller publisher, a larger publisher, more mainstream, less mainstream...
In my case, I'm trying a smaller, more focused publisher. Refer back to that link from before. Aio Publishing is aimed at... well, off-beat thinkers books. Books that want to think and be all literary and dramatic. "Densely written sociological speculative fiction with deeply developed characters"? I gasp and cringe in awe and hope, for this is what I want to read, what my book aspires to BE.
Now, it's not a perfect fit. They don't like murder; I want to examine the causes of violence, and so there's a lot of murder in my book. They don't want a military book. My book spends some focus on the military. They want a book with a strong literary voice. Having trained in journalism, my voice is quite literally a whisper; I prefer the more subtle voice.
Those little wrinkles aside, I think this is a much better fit than Tor. MUCH better. A little online research, and POW. I'm a lot closer to something good.
Well, I expect them to reject me as well. But now I have a plan, a list. A resource that shows me which publishers are closer to what I'm all about, what I want to be. My plans for the book.
Very nice.
http://www.ralan.com/
That is an AWESOME site. They maintain a listing of fantasy and science fiction publishers--and even some other publishers--letting you know the rates you can expect, what kind of submissions they want, and even how long it takes these folks to reply. I wish I'd checked them before; I submitted twice to Tor fantasy. They take forever to respond. This time I cherry-picked one that replies much earlier. Very nice.
Did I mention I submitted to Tor fantasy? A new novel, but again, not the novel they were looking for. (sigh)
I loved Tor Fantasy's old FAQ page. It's informative and nice, especially for noobs like me. It's gone now, unfortunately, but it included this little gem.
"How can I increase my chances of getting my book published?"
"Well, write a book we'll like. We aren't going to accept a book we don't like just because we haven't bought anything in a while, and we won't turn away a book we like because of market pressures. If you're not sure if it's perfect for us, send it in. We might like it, we might not. It's worth a try."
It was an honest attempt to let you know that it's a subjective process. The right author, the right publisher, the right time.
My time is not now.
How do you avoid the feeling that you have been slapped in the face by the meaty hand of editors everywhere when that form letter comes to let you know that you aren't good enough, that you, personally, are a failure, and a horrible person? To let you know that YOU STINK?
You can't, really. You just have to move on to another publisher, consider how well you're selling your work, and consider options. Find a smaller publisher, a larger publisher, more mainstream, less mainstream...
In my case, I'm trying a smaller, more focused publisher. Refer back to that link from before. Aio Publishing is aimed at... well, off-beat thinkers books. Books that want to think and be all literary and dramatic. "Densely written sociological speculative fiction with deeply developed characters"? I gasp and cringe in awe and hope, for this is what I want to read, what my book aspires to BE.
Now, it's not a perfect fit. They don't like murder; I want to examine the causes of violence, and so there's a lot of murder in my book. They don't want a military book. My book spends some focus on the military. They want a book with a strong literary voice. Having trained in journalism, my voice is quite literally a whisper; I prefer the more subtle voice.
Those little wrinkles aside, I think this is a much better fit than Tor. MUCH better. A little online research, and POW. I'm a lot closer to something good.
Well, I expect them to reject me as well. But now I have a plan, a list. A resource that shows me which publishers are closer to what I'm all about, what I want to be. My plans for the book.
Very nice.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
The joys of finance...
Or, why I don't think I can write a novel in a month this year.
For two years I have participated in NanoWrimo. It's a great event. Write a book in a month. 50,000 words. It RAWKS. Seriously. I've gotten the words out, twice in a row. Last year I took two weeks off from work to do it. It was, bar none, one of the greatest vacations EVER. Writing and writing...
Flash forward to this year.
I want to buy a house. A house, for heaven's sake! Wow. It's the perfect location, the opportunity of a lifetime. This house is in the neighborhood I grew up in, right in the middle of a loving community that has always been great to me. I mean, this house practically has my name on it.
It's too soon. I don't make enough money. It's too big. I don't have any money.
Basically, I'm going to go for it, even knowing that it'll kill me. This means (gasp) that I have to get a second job. No evenings to get my writing done. Instead I'm going to work 16-hour days for three months to try to get ahead enough to not worry about losing the house. That's a second job that runs 3 months working 5 hours a night. It'll kill me. But it'll mean some savings in the bank, an emergency fund that should get me through the hardest part of owning a new house.
...right through Nanowrimo.
I don't mind telling you, mixed feelings are an understatement. House: good. No Nano? Bad.
Especially since for my Nanowrimo I planned to do an expansive multi-thread epic about the nature of humanity, the simmering sociopath lurking within each of us, and the nature of great leaders like Napolean and how they are doomed to self-destruction. Also, aliens, vampires, and monsters.
Yeah, it was a little over the top.
In other news; I got a rejection letter! From Tor Fantasy! Yay! (waaaah)
More on rejection later.
For two years I have participated in NanoWrimo. It's a great event. Write a book in a month. 50,000 words. It RAWKS. Seriously. I've gotten the words out, twice in a row. Last year I took two weeks off from work to do it. It was, bar none, one of the greatest vacations EVER. Writing and writing...
Flash forward to this year.
I want to buy a house. A house, for heaven's sake! Wow. It's the perfect location, the opportunity of a lifetime. This house is in the neighborhood I grew up in, right in the middle of a loving community that has always been great to me. I mean, this house practically has my name on it.
It's too soon. I don't make enough money. It's too big. I don't have any money.
Basically, I'm going to go for it, even knowing that it'll kill me. This means (gasp) that I have to get a second job. No evenings to get my writing done. Instead I'm going to work 16-hour days for three months to try to get ahead enough to not worry about losing the house. That's a second job that runs 3 months working 5 hours a night. It'll kill me. But it'll mean some savings in the bank, an emergency fund that should get me through the hardest part of owning a new house.
...right through Nanowrimo.
I don't mind telling you, mixed feelings are an understatement. House: good. No Nano? Bad.
Especially since for my Nanowrimo I planned to do an expansive multi-thread epic about the nature of humanity, the simmering sociopath lurking within each of us, and the nature of great leaders like Napolean and how they are doomed to self-destruction. Also, aliens, vampires, and monsters.
Yeah, it was a little over the top.
In other news; I got a rejection letter! From Tor Fantasy! Yay! (waaaah)
More on rejection later.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Angst and pathos
These are my by-words. Angst and pathos.
According to dictionary.com:
Angst: a feeling of dread, anxiety, or anguish.
Pathos: A quality, as of an experience or a work of art, that arouses feelings of pity, sympathy, tenderness, or sorrow.
So, basically, my characters suffer (angst) and try to make you feel sorry for them (pathos). This is called 'drama.' (for a crash course in what I'm talking about, go watch Season 1 of Veronica Mars. RIGHT NOW)
But is there a limit? Is there a too far? A pit of despair from which the viewer cannot climb, that leaves him less entertained? Of course there is. That's why all angst and pathos must be comingled with laughter and adventure. (for a crash course in this, see Season 1-and-only of Firefly, and the movie, Serenity) Off-set a crushing situation and you have a situation that has unlimited potential. Until a budget-minded exec kills your show.
Now, let's be honest. Angst must be well-done and subtle to be effective. Otherwise you're way out in Smallville territory, and who wants that? Clark, get a spine, and grow some real angst. (season 1 Clark, anyway; I'm still playing catch-up)
Anyway, how does this translate into my writing? (everything comes back to writing, here) Well, some of my projects got so mired down in the angst they started to depress me. That's never good. And there was no wisecracks; it was much too serious a book. Others remained so angst-free or angst-lite--seriously, it was like Smallville's Clark showed up in my novels, angsting hard about things that hardly made sense, acting sensitive and sucking his cheeks in.
I have ofund balance, though, in my most recently plotted out book. One with laughs, high adventure, and deep angst. It started as a writing exercise in writing anti-epic books. What if you wrote a book about a high, epic war, from the POV of one person in it, a minor character, one whose life is turned to tragedy by that war? Not only would you have the terrific show Firefly, you could write a novel that was heartbreaking and funny, full of (you guessed it...) angst and pathos.
And that's where it's at.
According to dictionary.com:
Angst: a feeling of dread, anxiety, or anguish.
Pathos: A quality, as of an experience or a work of art, that arouses feelings of pity, sympathy, tenderness, or sorrow.
So, basically, my characters suffer (angst) and try to make you feel sorry for them (pathos). This is called 'drama.' (for a crash course in what I'm talking about, go watch Season 1 of Veronica Mars. RIGHT NOW)
But is there a limit? Is there a too far? A pit of despair from which the viewer cannot climb, that leaves him less entertained? Of course there is. That's why all angst and pathos must be comingled with laughter and adventure. (for a crash course in this, see Season 1-and-only of Firefly, and the movie, Serenity) Off-set a crushing situation and you have a situation that has unlimited potential. Until a budget-minded exec kills your show.
Now, let's be honest. Angst must be well-done and subtle to be effective. Otherwise you're way out in Smallville territory, and who wants that? Clark, get a spine, and grow some real angst. (season 1 Clark, anyway; I'm still playing catch-up)
Anyway, how does this translate into my writing? (everything comes back to writing, here) Well, some of my projects got so mired down in the angst they started to depress me. That's never good. And there was no wisecracks; it was much too serious a book. Others remained so angst-free or angst-lite--seriously, it was like Smallville's Clark showed up in my novels, angsting hard about things that hardly made sense, acting sensitive and sucking his cheeks in.
I have ofund balance, though, in my most recently plotted out book. One with laughs, high adventure, and deep angst. It started as a writing exercise in writing anti-epic books. What if you wrote a book about a high, epic war, from the POV of one person in it, a minor character, one whose life is turned to tragedy by that war? Not only would you have the terrific show Firefly, you could write a novel that was heartbreaking and funny, full of (you guessed it...) angst and pathos.
And that's where it's at.
Friday, April 27, 2007
More on motivations;
One of my projects turned into a muddle because I didn't give one character ANY motivations. I gave him a lot of actions and an interesting background, but only hints as to motivations because I hadn't thought his motivations out. He ran around, he gave hints, but... no reasons.
That stunk.
There's a fine line of balance. In RL, you never know a person's true motivations. The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to be beleivable. (to paraphrase Twain)
Let's take X-Files as an example, shall we. Mulder was driven by his sister. That memory haunted him. He wanted to explore the absurd, to find the unreal, because of it. It was a comic book motivations. "My... sister... dissappeared... when... I ... was... young!" It was kind of a big deal.
...what was Scully's motivations?
They were a lot more complex. She was driven by a desire to succeed in her career, a logical skepticism, and even by loyalty to Mulder. Yet she continued doing the job, going above and beyond, time after time after time. We saw glimpses of reasons. We saw some braveness. We saw some real fear. We saw, above all else, an almost real person.
Almost real. Nobody's quite real in fiction.
That stunk.
There's a fine line of balance. In RL, you never know a person's true motivations. The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to be beleivable. (to paraphrase Twain)
Let's take X-Files as an example, shall we. Mulder was driven by his sister. That memory haunted him. He wanted to explore the absurd, to find the unreal, because of it. It was a comic book motivations. "My... sister... dissappeared... when... I ... was... young!" It was kind of a big deal.
...what was Scully's motivations?
They were a lot more complex. She was driven by a desire to succeed in her career, a logical skepticism, and even by loyalty to Mulder. Yet she continued doing the job, going above and beyond, time after time after time. We saw glimpses of reasons. We saw some braveness. We saw some real fear. We saw, above all else, an almost real person.
Almost real. Nobody's quite real in fiction.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Motivations
I mentioned motivations in passing, when talking about Iron Man vs. Batman.
When I first started writing, every character I wrote had to have a crystal clear, logical motivation for what they did. They rationalized, and I helped them. They knew who they were. They an absolute sense of identity.
Do I even need to point out how completely unrealistic and unreadable that is?
If I want to read a story about somebody with a complete and realized identity I'll read a Dirk Pitt novel. And I won't enjoy it very much, either. There's no character growth possible. There's not even anything interesting about Dirk Pitt. There wasn't anything interesting about my early characters, either.
Name your favorite story, and think about the identity and motivations of the main character. Say... Star Wars. The original, not the prequels. Think about Luke Skywalker, and the way his motives and identity changed. How his moral certainty was broken down, and he had to find a new way. How the man he was in the end had almost nothing in common with the whiny farmboy.
So, as I enter in my however-many-years of writing, I try to write more complex characters. Characters driven by motives that may not even be clear to them. Characters rejected by their parents. Characters who lost their parents. Emotional characters. Illogical characters.
In short, real people.
It's both harder, and more rewarding.
More on this later.
When I first started writing, every character I wrote had to have a crystal clear, logical motivation for what they did. They rationalized, and I helped them. They knew who they were. They an absolute sense of identity.
Do I even need to point out how completely unrealistic and unreadable that is?
If I want to read a story about somebody with a complete and realized identity I'll read a Dirk Pitt novel. And I won't enjoy it very much, either. There's no character growth possible. There's not even anything interesting about Dirk Pitt. There wasn't anything interesting about my early characters, either.
Name your favorite story, and think about the identity and motivations of the main character. Say... Star Wars. The original, not the prequels. Think about Luke Skywalker, and the way his motives and identity changed. How his moral certainty was broken down, and he had to find a new way. How the man he was in the end had almost nothing in common with the whiny farmboy.
So, as I enter in my however-many-years of writing, I try to write more complex characters. Characters driven by motives that may not even be clear to them. Characters rejected by their parents. Characters who lost their parents. Emotional characters. Illogical characters.
In short, real people.
It's both harder, and more rewarding.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Mixed Feelings
So, by all reports Grindhouse is a brilliant, brilliant movie. Filled with all sorts of interesting dialogue, poor plotting, cheesy effects, and outstandingly bad acting. Altogether, that sounds like just the sort of movie I'd like, doesn't it?
Excessive use of violence, swearing, sex and nudity comprise the greater part of this movie. In fact, the excesses of the movie define it. That's what it's all about, right?
And that's where they lose me.
Why is it that in order to be artistic, in order to be considered at all serious about film-making, you need to drench your movies with blood and sex in equal hues? Is restraint in filmmaking only enforced from without, by stringent censors? Were the films that had to imply everything really so much less than the current let-it-all-hang-out movies? And isn't there something infantile about the American obsession with sex and violence?
That little whine-fest aside, this is a good time to be a big old nerd. Superhero movies are finally coming into their own as a mainstream phenomena. And as the kind of guy who collects comic books, let me just say... some of them stink. Big time. I mean, I kind of liked Daredevil, but even I was left with a bad feeling my mouth and a hatred for Mark Steven Johnson. (he did a little better with Ghost Rider, but you were still left wanting so much more)
Still, when they hit it out of the park... The trailer, that first adrenaline rush, for FF2, was awesome. It was a scene more awesome than anything we saw in the first movie. It was a scene worth waiting for. It was great. Images from the third Spidey flick are great. Spiderman in a bell tower fighting the symbiote? Wow.
And the very IDEA of an Iron Man movie starring Robert Downey Jr and directed by, of all folks, Jon Favreau... Wow. Jon Favreau blew me away with the saccharine-sweet Elf, and then again with the very dark and tragic kiddie movie Zathura. The idea of him being set loose with a dark hero like Iron Man... it's great. Of course, people don't know who Iron Man is. He's not one of the big names, like Hulk, Spidey, Bats, or Supes. Iron Man is, in his own way, darker. Batman, after all, pretends to be a worthless millionaire play-boy to hide his dark, serious alter ego. Tony Stark is a worthless millionaire play-boy, an alcoholic womanizer... with a dark, serious alter ego. Dark and consuming past? Um, no, just a rich kid with nice toys. Reasons? Motivations? Just because it's the right thing to do. I can't wait to see that movie.
It's a good time to be a fan.
Excessive use of violence, swearing, sex and nudity comprise the greater part of this movie. In fact, the excesses of the movie define it. That's what it's all about, right?
And that's where they lose me.
Why is it that in order to be artistic, in order to be considered at all serious about film-making, you need to drench your movies with blood and sex in equal hues? Is restraint in filmmaking only enforced from without, by stringent censors? Were the films that had to imply everything really so much less than the current let-it-all-hang-out movies? And isn't there something infantile about the American obsession with sex and violence?
That little whine-fest aside, this is a good time to be a big old nerd. Superhero movies are finally coming into their own as a mainstream phenomena. And as the kind of guy who collects comic books, let me just say... some of them stink. Big time. I mean, I kind of liked Daredevil, but even I was left with a bad feeling my mouth and a hatred for Mark Steven Johnson. (he did a little better with Ghost Rider, but you were still left wanting so much more)
Still, when they hit it out of the park... The trailer, that first adrenaline rush, for FF2, was awesome. It was a scene more awesome than anything we saw in the first movie. It was a scene worth waiting for. It was great. Images from the third Spidey flick are great. Spiderman in a bell tower fighting the symbiote? Wow.
And the very IDEA of an Iron Man movie starring Robert Downey Jr and directed by, of all folks, Jon Favreau... Wow. Jon Favreau blew me away with the saccharine-sweet Elf, and then again with the very dark and tragic kiddie movie Zathura. The idea of him being set loose with a dark hero like Iron Man... it's great. Of course, people don't know who Iron Man is. He's not one of the big names, like Hulk, Spidey, Bats, or Supes. Iron Man is, in his own way, darker. Batman, after all, pretends to be a worthless millionaire play-boy to hide his dark, serious alter ego. Tony Stark is a worthless millionaire play-boy, an alcoholic womanizer... with a dark, serious alter ego. Dark and consuming past? Um, no, just a rich kid with nice toys. Reasons? Motivations? Just because it's the right thing to do. I can't wait to see that movie.
It's a good time to be a fan.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Workouts and their wonderful effect on the brain
Novelists should work out constantly.
No, seriously! I want to see all potential novelists get health lectures. No junk food! Take long walks! Work the weight set!
Working out, exercising, eating right... these things don't just extend your life and give you strength. They clear your mind. They get your mind running at 100% of optimal. They give you a huge creative rush. This is what they should be teaching in schools. It's a great way to crack a case of writer's block. It's a great way to get your day going. You don't need a gym or anything. I'll give you a hundred exercise to kick your butt you can do in your own home, without any special equipment.
In other news, it turns out pointing and saying bang is discriminatory or obscene. Who knew? Apparently the professor wanted to talk about guns, gun control, and whether violence breeds violence. He wanted his students to think. So he started this discussion, pointed at one and said bang. Presumably to demonstrate something. Maybe how easy it is to kill with a gun? It says that subsequently another student pointed at him and said bang, demonstrating that if you armed the kids at school, something of this magnitude couldn't happen. (although the idea of a classroom debate when all the kids are packing heat makes me sweat...)
Well. Freedom of speech has been dead a long time. I wouldn't worry too much about it.
I'm going to write a lot today about selling your soul to the devil. Although I think too much is made of those big decisions, those epiphanies. It's the little decisions and moments that drive us forward. The song Sympathy for the Devil, by the Stones, lays it out like this: I shouted out,/Who killed the kennedys? /When after all/It was you and me. The message? We all want to know who the bad guy is when we put ourselves forth as the bad guys a long time ago without realizing it. Our little decisions caused the big problems. We wonder why there's a war in Iraq, but every single American is complicit there. Did you think our way of life, from the Coke bottle to the car, could survive? Did you think the entire idea of all men being created equal could survive without wars?
So it's a compelling thing to write about. Hopefully I can get my obligatory 1,500 words today.
No, seriously! I want to see all potential novelists get health lectures. No junk food! Take long walks! Work the weight set!
Working out, exercising, eating right... these things don't just extend your life and give you strength. They clear your mind. They get your mind running at 100% of optimal. They give you a huge creative rush. This is what they should be teaching in schools. It's a great way to crack a case of writer's block. It's a great way to get your day going. You don't need a gym or anything. I'll give you a hundred exercise to kick your butt you can do in your own home, without any special equipment.
In other news, it turns out pointing and saying bang is discriminatory or obscene. Who knew? Apparently the professor wanted to talk about guns, gun control, and whether violence breeds violence. He wanted his students to think. So he started this discussion, pointed at one and said bang. Presumably to demonstrate something. Maybe how easy it is to kill with a gun? It says that subsequently another student pointed at him and said bang, demonstrating that if you armed the kids at school, something of this magnitude couldn't happen. (although the idea of a classroom debate when all the kids are packing heat makes me sweat...)
Well. Freedom of speech has been dead a long time. I wouldn't worry too much about it.
I'm going to write a lot today about selling your soul to the devil. Although I think too much is made of those big decisions, those epiphanies. It's the little decisions and moments that drive us forward. The song Sympathy for the Devil, by the Stones, lays it out like this: I shouted out,/Who killed the kennedys? /When after all/It was you and me. The message? We all want to know who the bad guy is when we put ourselves forth as the bad guys a long time ago without realizing it. Our little decisions caused the big problems. We wonder why there's a war in Iraq, but every single American is complicit there. Did you think our way of life, from the Coke bottle to the car, could survive? Did you think the entire idea of all men being created equal could survive without wars?
So it's a compelling thing to write about. Hopefully I can get my obligatory 1,500 words today.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Dear Diary; Hello World
Borrowing from some famous cliches for the title, here, aren't we?
Anyway.
As a writer I've been running into some dead ends lately. Some stressful dead ends that in anybody else I would call writer's block. But a good friend of mine once told me that there is no such thing as writer's block. There's no time in your life when you are unable to write, when some cramp in your brain cuts off all your words. There will be times in your life when it's hard to write. When nothing leaps to mind.
That's the time you need to work for every word; and that's the time you need to exercise your word power.
So here I am, exercising my word power. Journalling is one of the easiest writing exercises there is, one of the easiest ways to work out the excessive fear of committing a wrong word to paper. One of the easiest ways to remind yourself why you write about the things you write about.
What do I write about? I write for the popcorn flicks of the literary world. Fantasy, science fiction... space opera would be more precise. Stories more about people than the fantastical things they do and see. Stories about flawed and unlikable people, for the most part.
Well. In addition to writing I'm trying to buy my first house, which is much too large and expensive for me. I'm about to put myself into the house-poor category, resoundingly. And then, after that, I will be so far in debt I may never get out. Yay!
Anyway.
As a writer I've been running into some dead ends lately. Some stressful dead ends that in anybody else I would call writer's block. But a good friend of mine once told me that there is no such thing as writer's block. There's no time in your life when you are unable to write, when some cramp in your brain cuts off all your words. There will be times in your life when it's hard to write. When nothing leaps to mind.
That's the time you need to work for every word; and that's the time you need to exercise your word power.
So here I am, exercising my word power. Journalling is one of the easiest writing exercises there is, one of the easiest ways to work out the excessive fear of committing a wrong word to paper. One of the easiest ways to remind yourself why you write about the things you write about.
What do I write about? I write for the popcorn flicks of the literary world. Fantasy, science fiction... space opera would be more precise. Stories more about people than the fantastical things they do and see. Stories about flawed and unlikable people, for the most part.
Well. In addition to writing I'm trying to buy my first house, which is much too large and expensive for me. I'm about to put myself into the house-poor category, resoundingly. And then, after that, I will be so far in debt I may never get out. Yay!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
