The nice thing about not having a dedicated readership is that I can go on long sabbaticals and no one clamors for me to get my shit together and get back to work. I haven't posted here, for instance, in two god damned years. Of course, the downside is that I can go on long sabbaticals and no one clamors for me to get my shit together and get back to work. So, you know, there's that. Of course, this isn't the only unpaid outlet where I write, but that's something every single hack writer, part-time wannabe blogger, dipshit LiveJournal writer says. "Sure, I'm not posting here, but I totally have ideas!" Something to that effect, right?
Well, I have the rejection letters to prove it, but that's beside the point.
The point, if I'm being honest, is that once you take a break from something it becomes very difficult, no matter how much you enjoy that thing, to find your way back. I never stopped writing, I just decided to get serious about my fiction. Long form fiction has always been my passion and in the last couple of years I've had to face the stark reality that if I never get serious, start submitting, discipline myself to finish the story and get it out there, then it would never be anything but a passion. A thing I pull out at parties to impress stupid people who think I'm a fucking wizard. A depressing little sidenote in an otherwise lackluster life. The decision to buckle down and get to work was easy, but actually doing it was another beast entirely. See, when I was blogging a lot and writing reams of totally unpublishable poetry, I didn't spend much time with fiction. So while I had a ton of ideas kicking around, and pages upon pages of disorganized and scribbled notes without context, I wasn't really sure where to start. I spent about two full days just sitting here, at my desk, staring at my screen, and doing fuck all.
So, instead of starting somewhere, I decided to finish. I picked up a few unfinished manuscripts and gave them a once-over and decided that Skyborn was the one I was most confident I could finish and make something with. When I was done there, I submitted it and then I sat back and waited. Like a fucking idiot. I didn't start a new project. I languished. I spent days and then weeks and then months just sort of...doing other stuff. Then it occurred to me that the idea of any writer, seriously any writer, getting published the first time they send in a novel to a major publishing house (where I honestly have no business yet) is just ludicrous. I mean, sure, that seems really obvious doesn't it? To literally anyone that has ever read an interview or had a conversation with a published writer. So I started to work with some of those old ideas, fleshing them out, really getting some solid plans together for where I could go with them, how they could maybe fit together one day.
Then I got my first rejection letter. It was, interestingly, one of the best days of my life. Finally, someone had read my work and decided it wasn't worthy! The tales are true! I can send out for rejection any time I want! There was real joy there.
So, I got back to work. I dusted off Skyborn, tinkered with it a bit, and sent it out again. To every publisher I could think might be interested. And when I was finished, something amazing happened: I didn't stop. I set that novel aside, to get some distance from it, and I started on another. And another. I decided that having two very different projects would keep me fresh, keep me on my toes and keep me working. That worked, in a way. It did let me exercise some new ideas, get me thinking about plotting and outlines. In fact, I did detailed outlines for both stories and then launched into the real writing. I'm still writing, actually. But not as quickly as I thought I would.
See, because two brand new projects was a stupid idea. Particularly if I didn't want them to end up sounding like the same idea with different, wacky names thrown in. One project stalled, the other got kind of boring, and I let them both wither on the vine for the time being. Both are interesting stories, but they're both very dark, grim, brooding sort of stories. I don't mean "gritty, realistic," DCEU stories either. These are rife with child molestation and patricide, the kind of story where the entire cast is dead at the end and you just feel kind of hollow for not being able to save them.
Stuff to write in the spring, when the world isn't already so gloomy, in other words.
However, back in August a dear friend of mine showed me a small publisher that was looking for short stories to fill an anthology for Halloween. Not being much of a short story writer, I initially thought it would be a terrible idea for me to submit. Then, in a flash of brilliant clarity, I remembered that an unpublished fat guy is no kind of writer and that my friend was giving me a great chance at changing that. So, I contacted the publisher and pitched them three ideas. That turned out to be silly, because none of those ideas was actually fleshed out enough for 10,000 words. Incredibly, they were nice, charming, funny, outstanding people who encouraged me to write one of those pitches out and submit it. Well, I did just that!
Okay, I took all three and Frankensteined them together into a single, monster of a piece. Point is, the publisher liked it and we went back and forth on the edits. The entire experience was very gentle, unbelievably helpful, and enlightening. I came away with a publishing credit and a much greater understanding of just how the industry works.
That got me thinking that I can break down some of my more difficult stories into smaller parts, self-contained pieces that tell their own stories and maybe fit into a larger narrative. Or maybe not. So I got to work plotting my next novel because I'm nothing if not stubborn. At the same time, I'm working on these shorter pieces. Experimenting. Its been terrific fun.
My favorite idea has been a series of letters from a conqueror to his wife, that tell the story of how he built his empire. Its been a lot of fun to work on. Then there are other bits and pieces of the world I explored in "The Last Son" that are really interesting.
If you're interested in reading "The Last Son", its been published in The Stranger Horror Anthology, Volume I which you can pick up here. There are eleven other, really stellar stories inside. And please, leave a review if you can spare the time. It helps the publisher and the authors get some recognition.
Monday, November 27, 2017
Sunday, September 8, 2013
Pride and Prejudice
I have talked, in other forums for Internet ranting, about how tired I am of people complaining. They complain about injustice, either due to gender or skin color or nationality or breakfast cereal preference. People will find a prejudice anywhere. I'm not saying, of course, that these injustices aren't taking place. I'm just saying that complaining about them doesn't actually accomplish anything beyond giving me a headache and mean case of the go-fuck-yourself's. Here, I want to talk about some of these things in entertainment (specifically in fiction, but I think it applies elsehwere).
Have you ever read a review about a book, or movie, or game, or anything where the words "strong female character" appeared? Or the even more damning "weak female character"? In my experience these things (the reviews, not the actual work in question) are written by someone trying to appeal to a liberal crowd that values equality and all of the enlightened ideals that come with being somewhat left-leaning politically and somewhat educated. You know, liberal arts students and feminists. That crowd.
My problem, I suppose, is that if these people are really in favor of equality, if they really have such a strong desire to see fairness in everything, then why are they using the gender definition? Real-life women aren't supposed to be defined by their gender, right? It's who they are as people that interests us. So why are fictional women any different? And why are fictional women who take a more submissive role, or a background one, considered weak? Maybe they aren't as assertive, maybe their circumstances aren't sufficiently explained, or maybe they don't have bombastic personalities, but why are they weak? And why define them as being weak, coupled with being women? You wouldn't define a male character with an assertive personality as a "strong male character". You'd call him assertive. Or dominant. Or commanding. Or a douchebag. You'd call a male character with no backbone a coward. Or a victim. Or uninteresting. Women can be uninteresting. Women can be douchebags.
The point is, by using a gender identifier, and demanding that every female character be at once assertive, and beautiful (but not so beautiful one could identify her beauty as an object of sexual attraction) and self-aware, you're both limiting the creative uses of characters that happen to be female, and creating a prejudice of your own.
There are other, equally idiotic, racial, social, and sexual cliches that drive me nuts, but right now the gender issue is first in my mind. Of the four primary characters in my novel Skyborn, one is a woman. In fact, she's very likely my favorite. But I don't want her to be a strong female character, or a spineless female character. I just want her to be seen for what she is in my mind. She's a woman, sure, but she's assertive and tough, she's sensual and funny, she's beautiful, occasionally cold, she's blunt when the situation calls for it. She's a warrior of the highest caliber, but her gender doesn't matter to the other men and women in her clan, or her family, or her chosen profession. As long as she's good at what she does. But being a warrior doesn't make her less feminine. Being feminine doesn't make her less of a warrior. She has weak moments, and moments of triumph. She has scenes where she weeps for her greif, and scenes where she kicks tremendous ass. She's a character that, sure, happens to be female.
The reason these prejudices exist, is because we allow ourselves to perpetuate them. Stop writing one-dimensional characters. The Damsel in Distress is an archetype, but there are innumerable ways to expand upon it and create a character with real depth that is, maybe, a woman, and might be in danger. Lots of women end up in dangerous situations. Chances are they didn't end up there because they're women. What are the circumstances that led to it? And chances are good they don't need rescuing because they're women. So why can't they get out on their own? Princess Leia didn't need help escaping from the Death Star because she had a vagina. She needed help because it was a massive military installation with a prison deep inside and it was called the fucking Death Star. Likewise, she didn't get captured because of her fantastic figure (although her later capture in Return of the Jedi damn sure showed us that she had one worth chaining up, but Jabba's a giant space dong so you can't really fault him for that one. Even the gross aliens were dressed like sluts), she was captured under suspicion of being a rebel sympathizer holding the plans to their massive military installation.
Holy shit, George Lucas wrote a "strong female character" and didn't portray her as "strong female character". The guy who was so bad at dialogue Sir Alec Guiness decided Obi-Wan had to die. He treated her as any other character (at least, in that film) and you educated fucks can't figure it out?
My point is that women, or black people, or homosexuals, can and should be identified, not by what separates them from heterosexual, white men, but by the characteristics that make them individuals. If your "strong female character" is kind of an asshole, then make sure you're painting her as an asshole that happens to be a woman. If your gay dwarf is sneaky and manipulative, make sure to show that he's a snake that only happens to like trouser snakes. Being gay or female or white or black is only one facet of who you are as a person. Fictional characters are no different. Strong female character is a template. The rest is up to your imagination. But if all the reviewers and the audience come away with is that your work contains strong female characters, either the character was without depth, or the audience needs a fucking slap in the scrotum. Or uterus, if they don't have scrotums.
I hope, by now, you're sick of seeing "strong female character". I could have done it with anything, really. "Strong black character" or "weak Australian character" or whatever. Any reason to come up with a prejudice would have been sufficient, but the gender issue really digs at me because I've known (and frequently loathed) so many misogynists and femi-nazis (I term I use for the type of feminist that thinks men are the root of all evil, rather than just kind of stupid and insensitive). I see no reason for this sort of gender bias, in real life or in fiction. There's nothing wrong with being proud of the type of person you are or the type of characters you create. Just don't let the things that make you (or them) different from other people become the things you take pride in.
Thought I was going to leave out pride, didn't you? Come at me Jane Austen fans.
Lasciviously Yours,
-S.R.
Have you ever read a review about a book, or movie, or game, or anything where the words "strong female character" appeared? Or the even more damning "weak female character"? In my experience these things (the reviews, not the actual work in question) are written by someone trying to appeal to a liberal crowd that values equality and all of the enlightened ideals that come with being somewhat left-leaning politically and somewhat educated. You know, liberal arts students and feminists. That crowd.
My problem, I suppose, is that if these people are really in favor of equality, if they really have such a strong desire to see fairness in everything, then why are they using the gender definition? Real-life women aren't supposed to be defined by their gender, right? It's who they are as people that interests us. So why are fictional women any different? And why are fictional women who take a more submissive role, or a background one, considered weak? Maybe they aren't as assertive, maybe their circumstances aren't sufficiently explained, or maybe they don't have bombastic personalities, but why are they weak? And why define them as being weak, coupled with being women? You wouldn't define a male character with an assertive personality as a "strong male character". You'd call him assertive. Or dominant. Or commanding. Or a douchebag. You'd call a male character with no backbone a coward. Or a victim. Or uninteresting. Women can be uninteresting. Women can be douchebags.
The point is, by using a gender identifier, and demanding that every female character be at once assertive, and beautiful (but not so beautiful one could identify her beauty as an object of sexual attraction) and self-aware, you're both limiting the creative uses of characters that happen to be female, and creating a prejudice of your own.
There are other, equally idiotic, racial, social, and sexual cliches that drive me nuts, but right now the gender issue is first in my mind. Of the four primary characters in my novel Skyborn, one is a woman. In fact, she's very likely my favorite. But I don't want her to be a strong female character, or a spineless female character. I just want her to be seen for what she is in my mind. She's a woman, sure, but she's assertive and tough, she's sensual and funny, she's beautiful, occasionally cold, she's blunt when the situation calls for it. She's a warrior of the highest caliber, but her gender doesn't matter to the other men and women in her clan, or her family, or her chosen profession. As long as she's good at what she does. But being a warrior doesn't make her less feminine. Being feminine doesn't make her less of a warrior. She has weak moments, and moments of triumph. She has scenes where she weeps for her greif, and scenes where she kicks tremendous ass. She's a character that, sure, happens to be female.
The reason these prejudices exist, is because we allow ourselves to perpetuate them. Stop writing one-dimensional characters. The Damsel in Distress is an archetype, but there are innumerable ways to expand upon it and create a character with real depth that is, maybe, a woman, and might be in danger. Lots of women end up in dangerous situations. Chances are they didn't end up there because they're women. What are the circumstances that led to it? And chances are good they don't need rescuing because they're women. So why can't they get out on their own? Princess Leia didn't need help escaping from the Death Star because she had a vagina. She needed help because it was a massive military installation with a prison deep inside and it was called the fucking Death Star. Likewise, she didn't get captured because of her fantastic figure (although her later capture in Return of the Jedi damn sure showed us that she had one worth chaining up, but Jabba's a giant space dong so you can't really fault him for that one. Even the gross aliens were dressed like sluts), she was captured under suspicion of being a rebel sympathizer holding the plans to their massive military installation.
Holy shit, George Lucas wrote a "strong female character" and didn't portray her as "strong female character". The guy who was so bad at dialogue Sir Alec Guiness decided Obi-Wan had to die. He treated her as any other character (at least, in that film) and you educated fucks can't figure it out?
My point is that women, or black people, or homosexuals, can and should be identified, not by what separates them from heterosexual, white men, but by the characteristics that make them individuals. If your "strong female character" is kind of an asshole, then make sure you're painting her as an asshole that happens to be a woman. If your gay dwarf is sneaky and manipulative, make sure to show that he's a snake that only happens to like trouser snakes. Being gay or female or white or black is only one facet of who you are as a person. Fictional characters are no different. Strong female character is a template. The rest is up to your imagination. But if all the reviewers and the audience come away with is that your work contains strong female characters, either the character was without depth, or the audience needs a fucking slap in the scrotum. Or uterus, if they don't have scrotums.
I hope, by now, you're sick of seeing "strong female character". I could have done it with anything, really. "Strong black character" or "weak Australian character" or whatever. Any reason to come up with a prejudice would have been sufficient, but the gender issue really digs at me because I've known (and frequently loathed) so many misogynists and femi-nazis (I term I use for the type of feminist that thinks men are the root of all evil, rather than just kind of stupid and insensitive). I see no reason for this sort of gender bias, in real life or in fiction. There's nothing wrong with being proud of the type of person you are or the type of characters you create. Just don't let the things that make you (or them) different from other people become the things you take pride in.
Thought I was going to leave out pride, didn't you? Come at me Jane Austen fans.
Lasciviously Yours,
-S.R.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
The Healing Power of Writing
I suffer from depression.
Actually, let me expand on that. I occasionally have to deal with myself during stretches of time when I'm a miserable fuck. The length of these moods varies. I don't have a great grasp on what causes them, what prolongs them, or when they started. I recall being upbeat as a kid. I remember being a dour, reckless, semi-rebellious, drug-addled teenager. I don't really know when the moods set in or where they came from.
I don't like to call it depression because every kid I went to school with called their hormonal mood swings depression. Every time someone was sad or upset, they were depressed. Depression, both as a word and a mental issue, has lost all meaning for me. I liken it to petty emotional immaturity. If you're suffering with depression, and I mean really suffering from real depression, I feel bad for you. But, then again, buck up. You have shit to do.
The reason I bring this up, particularly here, is because the moods tend to impact my writing. By impact, I mean my moods tend to cease my writing. Not because I'm not feeling creative, or because I'm not still working out stories in my head, but because the work of it, the actual putting pen to paper (or putting digital words on a blank page) becomes a struggle.
I also bring it up because writing is the only sure way I've found to fight them. It's hard. Almost insurmountably hard. I have to force it, and occasionally I've found that only some outside stimulus will give me the boost I need to even get that far, but it works. Without fail. A day, or a week, or a month after I start forcing myself into the routine of writing the mood will vanish.
I feel that the healing power of creativity can't be understated. I could have just pointed out that Stephen King attributes a lot of his recovery after being struck by a car to resuming his writing, but I think his is an extreme example. I can't relate to that experience because I've never been hit by a car. I've never endured that kind of physical agony, or the months and years of rehabilitation. He also mentions that writing helped him thorough beating his drug addictions, but while I've used a number of drugs recreationally I've never been through an intervention. I've never had that experience. It doesn't speak to me.
So I'm sharing my experience. I'm sharing the kind of struggle I've been through, one that you, as a reader and a writer, may or may not relate to, because I think we've all struggled. I think we've all dealt with pain.
I'm sharing it because putting your mind to the task, putting your fingers to work, may be the one thing that can save you from your own pain.
When it comes right down to it, you can work through your pain, your issues, with your creativity. With your writing. You didn't embark on this journey because it was going to be easy. You did it because you have to do it. You set out on this road knowing there would be obstacles. Trials. Tribulations. Triumphs. This is just one more of those.
So buck up, you have shit to do.
Yours,
-S.R.
Actually, let me expand on that. I occasionally have to deal with myself during stretches of time when I'm a miserable fuck. The length of these moods varies. I don't have a great grasp on what causes them, what prolongs them, or when they started. I recall being upbeat as a kid. I remember being a dour, reckless, semi-rebellious, drug-addled teenager. I don't really know when the moods set in or where they came from.
I don't like to call it depression because every kid I went to school with called their hormonal mood swings depression. Every time someone was sad or upset, they were depressed. Depression, both as a word and a mental issue, has lost all meaning for me. I liken it to petty emotional immaturity. If you're suffering with depression, and I mean really suffering from real depression, I feel bad for you. But, then again, buck up. You have shit to do.
The reason I bring this up, particularly here, is because the moods tend to impact my writing. By impact, I mean my moods tend to cease my writing. Not because I'm not feeling creative, or because I'm not still working out stories in my head, but because the work of it, the actual putting pen to paper (or putting digital words on a blank page) becomes a struggle.
I also bring it up because writing is the only sure way I've found to fight them. It's hard. Almost insurmountably hard. I have to force it, and occasionally I've found that only some outside stimulus will give me the boost I need to even get that far, but it works. Without fail. A day, or a week, or a month after I start forcing myself into the routine of writing the mood will vanish.
I feel that the healing power of creativity can't be understated. I could have just pointed out that Stephen King attributes a lot of his recovery after being struck by a car to resuming his writing, but I think his is an extreme example. I can't relate to that experience because I've never been hit by a car. I've never endured that kind of physical agony, or the months and years of rehabilitation. He also mentions that writing helped him thorough beating his drug addictions, but while I've used a number of drugs recreationally I've never been through an intervention. I've never had that experience. It doesn't speak to me.
So I'm sharing my experience. I'm sharing the kind of struggle I've been through, one that you, as a reader and a writer, may or may not relate to, because I think we've all struggled. I think we've all dealt with pain.
I'm sharing it because putting your mind to the task, putting your fingers to work, may be the one thing that can save you from your own pain.
When it comes right down to it, you can work through your pain, your issues, with your creativity. With your writing. You didn't embark on this journey because it was going to be easy. You did it because you have to do it. You set out on this road knowing there would be obstacles. Trials. Tribulations. Triumphs. This is just one more of those.
So buck up, you have shit to do.
Yours,
-S.R.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Inspiration and Imitation
Let me note, apologetically, that I've been away from the blog for some time. Nothing serious, just a real lack of motivation on my part. Not for the writing. For life. For the other, less significant parts of life, at least. I won't go on at length about how I'm sorry and this will never happen again because, well, I'd be lying. And even in the Internet Age I'm bad at lying. It will happen, from time to time, that I'll just bug out for a few days or a few weeks. No big.
The good news, I came back with new material.
I've been thinking the last few days about the difference between being influenced and imitating. I think the line gets blurry sometimes. Think of what makes you want to write, what really inspires you. For most of us, the solid answer is going to be books. Writers inspire you to write, for a variety of reasons. You might also find that music, or video games, or movies, or pornography, or birds make you want to write, but chances are those other influences aren't quite as strong.
What I want to know is, when does inspiration become imitation?
A number of great writers (Orson Scott Card and Steven King and Brandon Sanderson among them) have said that they were first drawn to storytelling by reading books, but that they held off writing for fear of just re-writing what they read. This seems particularly true with genre writers. Fantasy writers are trying to avoid re-writing The Lord of the Rings or, more modernly, The Wheel of Time. Science Fiction writers are trying to stray away from Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan and the greats. I'm sure it's true in other places. Horror writers are probably trying desperately to avoid being compared to Stephen King and those who write military fiction are probably trying to distance themselves from Tom Clancy.
A certain number of people are totally trying to cash in on those writers (and others) by writing thinly veiled plaigarisms to garner sales. Look at the number of bogus vampire novels that have come out since Twilight, or how popular kids as wizards were when everyone was going batshit for Harry Potter. Look at any successful book and you'll find a hundred copycats looking for money.
But the writers, the people who have some intrinsic need to tell stories, are always thinking of how to tell new stories, to say things differently from the works that inspired them.
Fantasy, as a genre, has been around a while and although its popularity isn't necessarily mainstream, it comes close sometimes. I love that, because for years Fantasy was looked down on. A bunch of geeks and losers trying to re-create Tolkien. I don't know that the stereotype was ever true. I've read probably two hundred books in the genre and although the influence is certainly there, I don't see much else. Not in the last ten years or so. Some, like the Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms series still use the epic quest undertaken by a few, but I think that's going to last forever. The hero goes on a quest is a basic element of storytelling that existed long before Tolkien's opus. I use it myself. It may not be so sprawling and epic as that of the Fellowship across Middle Earth or Rand al'Thor venturing across the Westlands before the Last Battle, but the heroic quest is always present in some context.
These other works of fantasy, though, are more complex than a simple re-write. They're fully realized worlds of their own, with novel characters and fresh conflicts. They're much more about the way that real people react to conflicts than about the All-Seeing Eye of Sauron's oppression. Even the worlds are changing. Many of them are still the sort of untouched beauty of ancient Scandanavia, but I daresay Tolkien didn't invent that idea.
The point is that modern Fantasy (and other like genres) are becoming less and less reimaginings of the men who brought them to our collective attention and more about new storytellers spinning out yarns we've never seen before. It just took us a while to get here.
So how do you avoid falling into that trap? How do you escape the mistakes of so many others and become part of this wild new era of original stories?
Read a lot, but read widely. Even if you only want to read a specific genre, you can do this without too much trouble. See, one benefit of all this diaspora is the sheer wealth of ideas out there. The good and the bad. Reading widely, even in a single genre, is a great way to keep yourself from repeating the same stories, while also learning what does and doesn't appeal to you as a reader. Or, what works and what doesn't.
I find my fiction often evolves when I get into a book, but not so much that it takes on that writer's style. I like to blend the elements I'm most attracted to with my own style. It keeps me fresh, keeps me excited about this world and this story that's unfolding at my fingertips, without ever deviating from being my story, my world, my words.
So if you ever get the chance to read one of my novels, take away from it what you will for your own work. But don't tell the same story. Tell your story, and I'll endeavor to do the same.
Graciously,
-S.R.
The good news, I came back with new material.
I've been thinking the last few days about the difference between being influenced and imitating. I think the line gets blurry sometimes. Think of what makes you want to write, what really inspires you. For most of us, the solid answer is going to be books. Writers inspire you to write, for a variety of reasons. You might also find that music, or video games, or movies, or pornography, or birds make you want to write, but chances are those other influences aren't quite as strong.
What I want to know is, when does inspiration become imitation?
A number of great writers (Orson Scott Card and Steven King and Brandon Sanderson among them) have said that they were first drawn to storytelling by reading books, but that they held off writing for fear of just re-writing what they read. This seems particularly true with genre writers. Fantasy writers are trying to avoid re-writing The Lord of the Rings or, more modernly, The Wheel of Time. Science Fiction writers are trying to stray away from Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan and the greats. I'm sure it's true in other places. Horror writers are probably trying desperately to avoid being compared to Stephen King and those who write military fiction are probably trying to distance themselves from Tom Clancy.
A certain number of people are totally trying to cash in on those writers (and others) by writing thinly veiled plaigarisms to garner sales. Look at the number of bogus vampire novels that have come out since Twilight, or how popular kids as wizards were when everyone was going batshit for Harry Potter. Look at any successful book and you'll find a hundred copycats looking for money.
But the writers, the people who have some intrinsic need to tell stories, are always thinking of how to tell new stories, to say things differently from the works that inspired them.
Fantasy, as a genre, has been around a while and although its popularity isn't necessarily mainstream, it comes close sometimes. I love that, because for years Fantasy was looked down on. A bunch of geeks and losers trying to re-create Tolkien. I don't know that the stereotype was ever true. I've read probably two hundred books in the genre and although the influence is certainly there, I don't see much else. Not in the last ten years or so. Some, like the Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms series still use the epic quest undertaken by a few, but I think that's going to last forever. The hero goes on a quest is a basic element of storytelling that existed long before Tolkien's opus. I use it myself. It may not be so sprawling and epic as that of the Fellowship across Middle Earth or Rand al'Thor venturing across the Westlands before the Last Battle, but the heroic quest is always present in some context.
These other works of fantasy, though, are more complex than a simple re-write. They're fully realized worlds of their own, with novel characters and fresh conflicts. They're much more about the way that real people react to conflicts than about the All-Seeing Eye of Sauron's oppression. Even the worlds are changing. Many of them are still the sort of untouched beauty of ancient Scandanavia, but I daresay Tolkien didn't invent that idea.
The point is that modern Fantasy (and other like genres) are becoming less and less reimaginings of the men who brought them to our collective attention and more about new storytellers spinning out yarns we've never seen before. It just took us a while to get here.
So how do you avoid falling into that trap? How do you escape the mistakes of so many others and become part of this wild new era of original stories?
Read a lot, but read widely. Even if you only want to read a specific genre, you can do this without too much trouble. See, one benefit of all this diaspora is the sheer wealth of ideas out there. The good and the bad. Reading widely, even in a single genre, is a great way to keep yourself from repeating the same stories, while also learning what does and doesn't appeal to you as a reader. Or, what works and what doesn't.
I find my fiction often evolves when I get into a book, but not so much that it takes on that writer's style. I like to blend the elements I'm most attracted to with my own style. It keeps me fresh, keeps me excited about this world and this story that's unfolding at my fingertips, without ever deviating from being my story, my world, my words.
So if you ever get the chance to read one of my novels, take away from it what you will for your own work. But don't tell the same story. Tell your story, and I'll endeavor to do the same.
Graciously,
-S.R.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
The Art of Heroes
Your story needs a hero. A good guy. Almost every story has one, and that good guy is usually the protagonist. It isn't universal, but it is close enough for our purposes here. Even stories allegedly told from the villain's point of view exist mostly to garner sympathy for the villain and make them a hero in their own right. Nobody actually believes they're the bad guy, right? So let's talk a little bit about that hero.
I'll address anti-heroes before I really get into the meat of this because I don't want to pull my hair out later for omitting them. I feel that anti-heroes, by and large, are predictable characters. They're gunslinging badasses with cool one-liners and a moral code that's just a bit too recklessly violent to make them good guys. They don't care about the laws and the innocents and all that mumbo-jumbo. But they always have a soft spot. One thing that makes them relatable. Otherwise, well, they'd be the villain. It could be vengeance or children or whatever. Hell, even Boba Fett wouldn't kill women and children.
The point I want to make is that if you're character is an anti-hero, great, but the mold for that is pretty set. There isn't much I can say to help you along. You're going to spend most of your story illustrating how awesome your character is and then, somewhere toward the end of the second act, that vulnerability will have to show up. I think anti-heroes are too easy to get carried away with. Not that some writers can't do them well, but an anti-hero with real depth (I think anti-heroes themselves were created to combat complaints that the good guys had no depth), as in feeling and thoughts that conflict and all that? Well, I'd love to be shown a good one. Until then, stick with the good guys.
Anti-heroes aside, the good guys typically come in one of two styles. These are about as generalized as possible, so don't get all wound up if I'm not specific enough for your particular goblin-slaying dwarf paladin with a haunted, talking sword and a dark past who really just wants to give up adventuring for a life of cake-decorating in the South Hills, but can't because he swore a blood oath to a man he wrongly killed to find the true meaning of revenge. Hold on. Let me write that down in my notes. Uh, copyright 2012.
Anyway.
The hero of the story is very likely either The Paragon of Goodness or The Flawed Hero. Both of them are about equally cliche at this point, so really, your hero is sort of dependent on the story you want to tell. If you want a dark, complex story, well the Flawed Hero is probably your guy. If you want an epic battle of good against evil, pure unadulterated fun, the Paragon of Goodness might suit you better.
The Paragon of Goodness, as you might have imagined, is a character that always does the right thing. Not the right thing as they see it, or the right thing for the time, but the right thing period. Galad, from The Wheel of Time is a good example of this, although technically a secondary character. He consistently puts himself, and others, into danger because he can't lie, can't bend the law, can't ever do something that isn't right. But he isn't conflicted about it. See, the Paragon of Goodness knows they're doing the right thing, knows their actions have consequences, and reconciles the two by doing the right thing anyway. Typically people writing a hero like this don't give those actions dire consequences, but Robert Jordan's world isn't a soft one.
The distinguishing factor is that the hero doesn't have internal conflict, they don't (usually) have regrets from the past. The Paragon of Goodness is kind of a saint.
The Flawed Hero is, obviously, flawed. Perhaps not fatally flawed, as the heroes of Shakespeare's tragedies, but not the upright bastion of light that the Paragon embodies either. The Flawed Hero is typically more realistic because he's conflicted, he's emotional, he's got scars and issues like the rest of us. People want to see someone with the great weight of saving the world (or the girl, or the village, or the Cube of Plot Devices) thrust upon them, bow a little bit under that strain. I'd hazard a guess that the Flawed Hero is more common, at least now, because the Paragon is difficult to believe as real. We know people are good, but no one is that good.
David Bell is good at writing the Flawed Hero. His characters, whether a grief-stricken father or a conscience-laden mechanic or the genre-typical special detective are these fundamentally normal people. They've made bad decisions, made mistakes, seen and done things they regret. Those things haunt them. They're trying to stop something bad, trying to thwart some evil or find answers. They're on the Good Guys' Quest, but they aren't wholly good themselves. They're human, after all.
Either of these characters can make a fine protagonist, depending on what you do with them. The story must fit the hero, after all. You wouldn't send the Paragon of Goodness trekking through a world where he'd be forced to murder strangers to reach his goal. The character wouldn't be able to handle that. He'd crack under the guilt, or get killed trying to avoid doing what needed to be done. Likewise, you wouldn't send the Flawed Hero on a quest that would test the purity of his heart. He'd lose.
Perhaps it goes without saying, but the hero is one of the most important things to consider when you set out to write a story. Before you work on your outlines or your supporting cast, make sure you get to know the protagonist. Believe in them. See where and how they grow over the course of the story. You don't need to like them, honestly. I've written characters I'm not fond of for several reasons. Characters I would never share a drink with if we met. But you do need to know and believe them before they can come to life.
Try to highlight the subtle things about your hero. Bring out the new and exciting things. The Flawed Hero and the Paragon of Goodness have been done, show me what makes yours unique. Why should I care about his flaws or his journey? Why should I care about her struggle? The real art of creating heroes is taking something we've seen, that most basic mold, and making something extraordinary out of it. Do that, show me a hero I want to read about and put them in a story I can get lost in and you've hooked me.
There's no secret to it, there's not even one right way to do it. But when that character emerges, the one that just sinks its claws into your brain until you start spilling their life onto the page, you'd better run with it.
Characteristically Yours,
-S.R.
I'll address anti-heroes before I really get into the meat of this because I don't want to pull my hair out later for omitting them. I feel that anti-heroes, by and large, are predictable characters. They're gunslinging badasses with cool one-liners and a moral code that's just a bit too recklessly violent to make them good guys. They don't care about the laws and the innocents and all that mumbo-jumbo. But they always have a soft spot. One thing that makes them relatable. Otherwise, well, they'd be the villain. It could be vengeance or children or whatever. Hell, even Boba Fett wouldn't kill women and children.
The point I want to make is that if you're character is an anti-hero, great, but the mold for that is pretty set. There isn't much I can say to help you along. You're going to spend most of your story illustrating how awesome your character is and then, somewhere toward the end of the second act, that vulnerability will have to show up. I think anti-heroes are too easy to get carried away with. Not that some writers can't do them well, but an anti-hero with real depth (I think anti-heroes themselves were created to combat complaints that the good guys had no depth), as in feeling and thoughts that conflict and all that? Well, I'd love to be shown a good one. Until then, stick with the good guys.
Anti-heroes aside, the good guys typically come in one of two styles. These are about as generalized as possible, so don't get all wound up if I'm not specific enough for your particular goblin-slaying dwarf paladin with a haunted, talking sword and a dark past who really just wants to give up adventuring for a life of cake-decorating in the South Hills, but can't because he swore a blood oath to a man he wrongly killed to find the true meaning of revenge. Hold on. Let me write that down in my notes. Uh, copyright 2012.
Anyway.
The hero of the story is very likely either The Paragon of Goodness or The Flawed Hero. Both of them are about equally cliche at this point, so really, your hero is sort of dependent on the story you want to tell. If you want a dark, complex story, well the Flawed Hero is probably your guy. If you want an epic battle of good against evil, pure unadulterated fun, the Paragon of Goodness might suit you better.
The Paragon of Goodness, as you might have imagined, is a character that always does the right thing. Not the right thing as they see it, or the right thing for the time, but the right thing period. Galad, from The Wheel of Time is a good example of this, although technically a secondary character. He consistently puts himself, and others, into danger because he can't lie, can't bend the law, can't ever do something that isn't right. But he isn't conflicted about it. See, the Paragon of Goodness knows they're doing the right thing, knows their actions have consequences, and reconciles the two by doing the right thing anyway. Typically people writing a hero like this don't give those actions dire consequences, but Robert Jordan's world isn't a soft one.
The distinguishing factor is that the hero doesn't have internal conflict, they don't (usually) have regrets from the past. The Paragon of Goodness is kind of a saint.
The Flawed Hero is, obviously, flawed. Perhaps not fatally flawed, as the heroes of Shakespeare's tragedies, but not the upright bastion of light that the Paragon embodies either. The Flawed Hero is typically more realistic because he's conflicted, he's emotional, he's got scars and issues like the rest of us. People want to see someone with the great weight of saving the world (or the girl, or the village, or the Cube of Plot Devices) thrust upon them, bow a little bit under that strain. I'd hazard a guess that the Flawed Hero is more common, at least now, because the Paragon is difficult to believe as real. We know people are good, but no one is that good.
David Bell is good at writing the Flawed Hero. His characters, whether a grief-stricken father or a conscience-laden mechanic or the genre-typical special detective are these fundamentally normal people. They've made bad decisions, made mistakes, seen and done things they regret. Those things haunt them. They're trying to stop something bad, trying to thwart some evil or find answers. They're on the Good Guys' Quest, but they aren't wholly good themselves. They're human, after all.
Either of these characters can make a fine protagonist, depending on what you do with them. The story must fit the hero, after all. You wouldn't send the Paragon of Goodness trekking through a world where he'd be forced to murder strangers to reach his goal. The character wouldn't be able to handle that. He'd crack under the guilt, or get killed trying to avoid doing what needed to be done. Likewise, you wouldn't send the Flawed Hero on a quest that would test the purity of his heart. He'd lose.
Perhaps it goes without saying, but the hero is one of the most important things to consider when you set out to write a story. Before you work on your outlines or your supporting cast, make sure you get to know the protagonist. Believe in them. See where and how they grow over the course of the story. You don't need to like them, honestly. I've written characters I'm not fond of for several reasons. Characters I would never share a drink with if we met. But you do need to know and believe them before they can come to life.
Try to highlight the subtle things about your hero. Bring out the new and exciting things. The Flawed Hero and the Paragon of Goodness have been done, show me what makes yours unique. Why should I care about his flaws or his journey? Why should I care about her struggle? The real art of creating heroes is taking something we've seen, that most basic mold, and making something extraordinary out of it. Do that, show me a hero I want to read about and put them in a story I can get lost in and you've hooked me.
There's no secret to it, there's not even one right way to do it. But when that character emerges, the one that just sinks its claws into your brain until you start spilling their life onto the page, you'd better run with it.
Characteristically Yours,
-S.R.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
The Dreaditorial Process (Part 4)
If you ever get the chance, you should read through interviews with published writers. Particularly fiction writers, but I'll bet you find many of the same things elsewhere in the business. Barring that, read the introductions and Forewords that are fairly prevalent in newer editions. Making sure to account for King's idea that much of what writers say about their own work is bullshit (confidently referred to as King's Bullshit Rule), pay special attention to what they have to say about their process, both with writing and editing. The results, I think, are fascinating.
I've been reading interviews with fantasy giant Brandon Sanderson lately. On top of having a fair amount of success with his own work (which involves stand alone novels as well as the genre mandatory sprawling epics) he's finishing Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series, which is among my all-time favorites. I've noticed that he isn't shy about admitting his faults and limitations, but he does so in such a matter-of-fact way that it's almost endearing. He's also very open about his process, which I think is rather refreshing. So many writers surround themselves with this air of mystery and aloofness that it becomes tiresome to think of them as people. Which, I suppose, is the entire point.
Sanderson, though, comes off as a very genuine man who loves what he does for a living. He's also experienced and and confident, which is good to see in a younger writer.
What I found most interesting (indeed, what I want this whole piece to be about) is the idea of changing things in drafts. I've always heard of writers moving scenes around, changing, adding and eliminating whole chapters or storylines or characters. It frightened me, because it seemed to at odds with that air of mystery I mentioned earlier. That idea that a story is a natural thing, a living, organic thing that the writer pulls from the ether fully formed.
I always envisioned the editing process as fixing minor mistakes and typos caused by the fingers being unable to move as quickly as the mind works. The reality is much more mundane.
Writing, like any craft, takes time. Time to hone and practice, to sharpen the necessary skills. Someday, perhaps, your first draft will be nearly perfect. You won't be so concerned with what works and what doesn't because you'll be practiced enough to decide that in the initial writing. Maybe you already are, but I doubt it. I thought I was, honestly, and I was wrong.
In editing Eve I've found that entire sections need to be expanded to fit the story, others need to be set aside because, frankly, they don't work. I've got a solid idea that four or five chapters need to be moved around, swapped out, and tweaked until the story flows coherently. I'm doing all of those things I once found so terrifying, and it feels natural.
See, the story does come from the ether. The muse. The Jesus. Wherever. You are unearthing it, coalescing it, unraveling it. And sometimes, the fingers work faster than the mind. When you're so excited about something you just need to let it spill out, sometimes you forget details. You misinterpret things. You leave out the bits that come to mind later and focus on the raw creation.
That's what I did, and it felt great. Now, as I'm going back to fill in those things, I find that the parts I left out are as wonderful to explore as the ones that poured out of me the first time around. I've always loved the story of Rythe and his friends fighting to keep Khilanth from succumbing to darkness. Now, as I delve even deeper into that world and see where things can be changed, I'm even more enamored with it.
I think that's the key to revision. If you're doing it right, it can be frustrating and aggravating, sure. All work can be that. But if you're doing it right, you'll fall in love with the story all over again and this time, it won't be some passing affection. This is real love.
And if you don't love your creations, what's the point?
Yours,
-S.R.
I've been reading interviews with fantasy giant Brandon Sanderson lately. On top of having a fair amount of success with his own work (which involves stand alone novels as well as the genre mandatory sprawling epics) he's finishing Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series, which is among my all-time favorites. I've noticed that he isn't shy about admitting his faults and limitations, but he does so in such a matter-of-fact way that it's almost endearing. He's also very open about his process, which I think is rather refreshing. So many writers surround themselves with this air of mystery and aloofness that it becomes tiresome to think of them as people. Which, I suppose, is the entire point.
Sanderson, though, comes off as a very genuine man who loves what he does for a living. He's also experienced and and confident, which is good to see in a younger writer.
What I found most interesting (indeed, what I want this whole piece to be about) is the idea of changing things in drafts. I've always heard of writers moving scenes around, changing, adding and eliminating whole chapters or storylines or characters. It frightened me, because it seemed to at odds with that air of mystery I mentioned earlier. That idea that a story is a natural thing, a living, organic thing that the writer pulls from the ether fully formed.
I always envisioned the editing process as fixing minor mistakes and typos caused by the fingers being unable to move as quickly as the mind works. The reality is much more mundane.
Writing, like any craft, takes time. Time to hone and practice, to sharpen the necessary skills. Someday, perhaps, your first draft will be nearly perfect. You won't be so concerned with what works and what doesn't because you'll be practiced enough to decide that in the initial writing. Maybe you already are, but I doubt it. I thought I was, honestly, and I was wrong.
In editing Eve I've found that entire sections need to be expanded to fit the story, others need to be set aside because, frankly, they don't work. I've got a solid idea that four or five chapters need to be moved around, swapped out, and tweaked until the story flows coherently. I'm doing all of those things I once found so terrifying, and it feels natural.
See, the story does come from the ether. The muse. The Jesus. Wherever. You are unearthing it, coalescing it, unraveling it. And sometimes, the fingers work faster than the mind. When you're so excited about something you just need to let it spill out, sometimes you forget details. You misinterpret things. You leave out the bits that come to mind later and focus on the raw creation.
That's what I did, and it felt great. Now, as I'm going back to fill in those things, I find that the parts I left out are as wonderful to explore as the ones that poured out of me the first time around. I've always loved the story of Rythe and his friends fighting to keep Khilanth from succumbing to darkness. Now, as I delve even deeper into that world and see where things can be changed, I'm even more enamored with it.
I think that's the key to revision. If you're doing it right, it can be frustrating and aggravating, sure. All work can be that. But if you're doing it right, you'll fall in love with the story all over again and this time, it won't be some passing affection. This is real love.
And if you don't love your creations, what's the point?
Yours,
-S.R.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
The Dreaditorial Process (Part 3)
Second drafts are a lot like torture. There are periods of unenviable agony, broken up by periods of wonder at the absence of pain. In my case, the agony comes in the form of utter frustration. As I've said before, I am editing two projects concurrent with the new one I'm writing. Work has been a bit slow the last week or two, between looking for more gainful employment and getting distracted by other things but I've thought about it a great deal (the Procrastinator's Creed, I think, is "I haven't done anything, but I've sure thought about it.") and over the last two days I've gotten back into the proverbial swing of things.
I'm taking some advice I was given about how to approach editing Eve of the Dragonspeaker, and putting a bit of a spin on it. I opened up a brand new composition book and started reading my novel. I haven't made any changes yet, but each time I find something, and I've found a good bit, I note it by chapter in my notebook. For now, I'm looking at major issues. Does the dialogue sound right? Why is this happening? Are these decisions in-character? That sort of thing. I'm also making sure to sort of bolster my glossary with information, to keep the narrative (and the world) clear, concise, and continuous.
Unfortunately, I'm coming across the same issues time and again, and that's frustrating. Fortunately, the time that's passed since I last looked at this work has made it much, much easier to know when I'm being stupid. A surprising amount of the writing is solid, even the dialogue is, for the most part, right where it should be (barring some horrible, horrible lines). The majority of the issues I've found are related to characters. The things I discussed yesterday.
Those are easy enough to fix. Most of the issue just involves cutting down some bits of action or dialogue. A few of them, most notably Rythe's tendency to suddenly start talking and acting like the White Knight of Heroville, will require a little more effort on my part. I've noticed too, that I'm adding internal monologue in more places, because the narrative feels sort of empty without it.
I managed to read through five chapters yesterday (they're long chapters, get off my back) and I've got about three pages worth of jotted notes. I'm happy about it. I think this second draft will be much easier to work with than the first. I'm excited about it again, and I'm almost impatient to get to it this afternoon.
As is so often the case, I haven't done anything with Star Rider. No action, anyway. I've thought about it, remember. I opened it up this morning. I think my first idea was a bit ambitious. Just getting it all translated into type will be sufficient progress, before breaking it down into chapters and sections and getting into the meat of the editing. Luckily, I've taken about ten years worth of notes on this thing, and the changes I need to make aren't terribly difficult or even all that extensive.
Those are the updates I have thus far. No real advice, except that the advice I've always received about editing was right on the money. If you finish a project, set it aside for a while. A few days, a few weeks, a few years, whatever it takes, so that when you come back to re-write, you find yourself with a fresh perspective. It's a simple idea, really, but it works wonders.
Constructively Yours,
-S.R.
I'm taking some advice I was given about how to approach editing Eve of the Dragonspeaker, and putting a bit of a spin on it. I opened up a brand new composition book and started reading my novel. I haven't made any changes yet, but each time I find something, and I've found a good bit, I note it by chapter in my notebook. For now, I'm looking at major issues. Does the dialogue sound right? Why is this happening? Are these decisions in-character? That sort of thing. I'm also making sure to sort of bolster my glossary with information, to keep the narrative (and the world) clear, concise, and continuous.
Unfortunately, I'm coming across the same issues time and again, and that's frustrating. Fortunately, the time that's passed since I last looked at this work has made it much, much easier to know when I'm being stupid. A surprising amount of the writing is solid, even the dialogue is, for the most part, right where it should be (barring some horrible, horrible lines). The majority of the issues I've found are related to characters. The things I discussed yesterday.
Those are easy enough to fix. Most of the issue just involves cutting down some bits of action or dialogue. A few of them, most notably Rythe's tendency to suddenly start talking and acting like the White Knight of Heroville, will require a little more effort on my part. I've noticed too, that I'm adding internal monologue in more places, because the narrative feels sort of empty without it.
I managed to read through five chapters yesterday (they're long chapters, get off my back) and I've got about three pages worth of jotted notes. I'm happy about it. I think this second draft will be much easier to work with than the first. I'm excited about it again, and I'm almost impatient to get to it this afternoon.
As is so often the case, I haven't done anything with Star Rider. No action, anyway. I've thought about it, remember. I opened it up this morning. I think my first idea was a bit ambitious. Just getting it all translated into type will be sufficient progress, before breaking it down into chapters and sections and getting into the meat of the editing. Luckily, I've taken about ten years worth of notes on this thing, and the changes I need to make aren't terribly difficult or even all that extensive.
Those are the updates I have thus far. No real advice, except that the advice I've always received about editing was right on the money. If you finish a project, set it aside for a while. A few days, a few weeks, a few years, whatever it takes, so that when you come back to re-write, you find yourself with a fresh perspective. It's a simple idea, really, but it works wonders.
Constructively Yours,
-S.R.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)