Monday, August 31, 2009

I Am The Work In Progress

This is a personal one. Thanks to everyone, especially F. P. Adriani, Tess Hilmo, and Scott G. F. Bailey, for helping me clarify the role of writing in my life.

I've been writing for nine years, but somewhere, I made a wrong turn. Because, I've been learning two different things. First, I've been learning how to become a better writer. Second, I've been learning some ways to publish a book through a major publishing house.

The wrong turn that I made was that I muddled these things together. I told myself that I'm not a good writer until I'm published through a major house. I told myself that following publishing advice would automatically make me a better writer. This has been bad for me. And, to make matters worse, I've been blaming the wrong people.

It's not the literary agents' fault.

Some literary agents have been very public about telling us what we should be doing to be successful. But, I think a lot of us have misinterpreted their message or have not read their message thoroughly.

1. The agents with an online presence are not EVERY agent.

Blogging agents often tell us that their preferences are no more than their own personal preferences. They can't represent all agents because they aren't all agents. In fact, I've been finding plenty of blogless agents to admire. People like Eric Simonoff, Ann Rittenberg, Laurie Liss, and Sandra Dijkstra approach literature in a way that better matches my views. As an example, here are some of their mission statements:

"To find and sell well books that make a difference. To be our clients' best advocates in a mutually supportive and rewarding environment. To make things happen."
-Sandra Dijkstra Literary Agency.

"We represent authors first, and books second. We're interested in building careers, in nurturing growth--artistic and commercial--with each book our clients write."
-Ann Rittenbery Literary Agency.

Reading that just makes me want to cry with relief. I've sent my compliments to these two agents, and they've even written back with similar nice words. What great women!

2. Writers don't necessarily get the complete picture.

When we take time out of our jobs, our love lives, our parenting, our writing, our critiquing, we sometimes research publishing. But, chances are, we haven't been thorough enough. And, I think we are putting some undue stress on ourselves by trying to interpret the inadequate bits of information we get. We can't know everything there is to know about the publishing world. Agents and editors can't either! So, maybe we shouldn't worry about doing something the wrong way, when, quite possibly, the way we're doing it is just fine.

3. A business person's definition of success is not my definition of success.

Agents and publishers need to eat. To eat they must sell books and take a share of the profit. Because of that, they are approaching writing, at least in part, based on business. There's nothing wrong with that. But, I think each of us has to realize for ourselves what will make us personally happy, and it may not be money.

I've published several short stories in print and online. Some of those stories have been personal. Others have been exercises. I've learned that publishing is not what makes me happy. The satisfaction I get comes from me publishing something personal. Even if I self-publish a personal book and only end up selling 200 copies, I honestly think that would be more satisfying than selling 2000 copies of a book that I have no attachment to. (Yes, these numbers are small. I'm a literary writer, after all.)

Don't get me wrong. I think it's true that writers can do both. I think some writers, given marketing restrictions, can still produce something that was fun for them to make, at least partially. But, for me, the attempt to be business savvy inhibits my own creativity. I don't yet have enough skill to make this type of compromise.

So, here's what I believe will make me happy: 1. I want to write books that I am deeply and personally connected to. 2. I want to share those books with as many readers as I can.

That's it.

That means that I may or may not need an agent. I may or may not need to publish through a major publishing house. I may or may not need a hook or a platform. I may or may not need to network. All of these things are possible tools that I can use to reach my goal, but they are not the only tools. And, lately, my attempts to acquire them have been hurting my art and my happiness.

So, I guess this is my declaration of independence. This is my renewed vow to write with myself and my readers in mind, not the mainstream market. I am going to try to make my writing as emotional and moving as I can, with the hopes that the revelation of the human spirit will be as powerful a marketing tool as my torrid affair with Miley Cyrus.

Friday, August 28, 2009

There Is No Backstory

This is my somewhat anticipated post about eliminating backstory in novels. I must rush to the airport soon to fetch the Poetess of Boise, so I'll be brief. Hopefully there will be time to read your comments later. No promises.

Suppose your novel begins with a big chunk (a chapter or two) of backstory. Or, suppose you have big chunks of backstory in other parts of your novel. In either of these cases, you may have decided that you don't want the backstory coming at the reader in big blocks that slow down the narrative, but you don't know what to do about it. How do you get rid of these big blocks of backstory? I have a couple of suggested techniques for this, which I call Cut and Move and There Is Only Now.

Cut and Move is pretty simple, because it's just what it sounds like. You cut out the whole block of backstory, removing it entirely, and stitch together as necessary the bits of story that surrounded the backstory, so that it flows together over what was for a moment a huge gaping hole in the narrative. You've deleted your infodump for all time and patched over the seam. Next, you read through your manuscript and see what parts of the story no longer make sense to the reader without the missing backstory, and mark for inclusion only those bits of deleted backstory absolutely necessary for the story to remain intelligible. I think you will find that most of the backstory you cut out is unnecessary to the story. Keep in mind that just because your prose is important to you, that does not make it important to your reader.

Where do you put this recycled backstory? Only where it has to be. If something is necessary for the reader to know, you tell them when they must know it, at the last possible moment and in the least obtrusive manner as possible. I recommend using the plainest prose you've got when writing about this stuff.

Cut and Move works best for historical or setting details, when talking about a place or an object. If, however, you are writng about characters and are establishing motivations and behaviors, Cut and Move doesn't work so well as does a technique I call There Is Only Now.

There Is Only Now is based on the idea that your reader doesn't care as much about the past as she does about the present in your story. In other words, we don't want to know what happened, we want to know what is happening. Don't tell me where your protagonist has been, tell me where he is right now, and where he's going.

Which is to say, whatever character traits you want to show, you can show them in the story present. Take your backstory telling about the traumatic events in your MC's past that result in his being afraid of fire or whatever, and rewrite it so that the events (or something similar) happen in the story present. Show us how your character is Now. There is only now.

Is there a ghost who's angry about a past lover's betrayal? Show the ghost Now, acting out that anger. Do not give us a prologue or a flashback. We don't know about the past lover and why the ghost is angry? That's good; it adds a mystery for the protagonist to solve, and that adds action to the story and action is good.

In my book, I had a scene where my protagonist's father was begging for a favor from a powerful man. I rewrote it so that it takes place years later, in the story present, and the protagonist is begging a favor from the powerful man. It's much more dramatic and compelling. We see the protagonist acting in the Now.

The biggest problem with backstory is that is tends to show characters as people things happen to instead of people who do things. If you take the same events from the story past and make them into events in the story present, you get to see the characters acting (which is always more interesting), the details and character traits become more compelling and memorable, and the story itself has forward momentum. Things are happening Now.

An observation about complex backstory: If your backstory is so complex that you simply cannot use the suggestions above, I might be inclined to think that either a) your story is too complicated to be intelligible to most readers, or b) your backstory might be the real story you want to write and you should think about that.

A final caveat: It's not necessary that you take any of these suggestions, nor is it necessary that you write books that don't have big chunks of backstory.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Stones


photo found on photo dictionary

A long time ago people used a flint-like stone to test gold for its purity. By running the gold over the stone, they could see if the metal was real or not. They called this a touchstone, which is where I think the other definition originated - a test or criterion for determining the quality or genuineness of a thing. Not just gold.

Yesterday Davin posted about where originality comes from. Is it from our subconscious as we absorb everybody else's originality? Or is it from our own personal life experiences, from something deep inside us? What we mean when we say "write from your heart?"

In college I worked for the literary magazine, titled Touchstones. That's where I first learned about the term, and where I learned the importance of what Davin talks about in his post - copying. I know that sounds bad. We writers should never plagiarize or copy anything, right? I agree, to a point.

For several semesters, before I got onto the staff of Touchstones, I submitted my work to the magazine. It got rejected every time. I was frustrated. What was wrong with my work? It was good, I was an English major, written two novels in high school, blah blah blah. One night I took a current copy of the magazine home and read through every piece.

Oh.

Nothing in it was like what I wrote. I realized I'd have to either be happy with never being published in the magazine, or write something that would fit. I studied the work in there, practiced writing, and basically copied the style of some of the writers. And I got accepted. I was astounded. Was it really that easy? So I started paying more attention to work outside of the magazine - especially Annie Dillard. I read Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, shocked at how beautiful her language was, and how deeply her thoughts reached into me. She was something genuine to me, something I could rub myself on to see if I could do what she had. I wanted to write like her, but put more of a fictional story to it. I wrote a short story titled, Clover, and submitted it to the magazine. The first bit of the story:

Slowly, the hills around my house burst into green. No longer virgin-white from the snow, they spread their life, their color, their vigor to neighboring hills until the entire valley breathes life. Pulsating from its filled lungs of color, I transform to spring, and watch as my four-year old daughter spreads her crayons across the table with one swipe of her hand, then sighs with approval.

Colors have a way of fascinating, whether wrapped in paper and stuffed in a box, or pushing fist fulls through topsoil, screaming, “I am here at last!”

The doctors say my daughter has two years left, perhaps three if she’s lucky. Her disease continues to spread, coiled inside her like a spring ready to burst and pierce vital organs with its fangs. I help her color. She misses the lines, but somehow creates a masterpiece. The smell of Crayola fills my head.

If you know Annie Dillard at all, you'll know nature is a huge pull for her. I copied that idea. I copied the slow, laid-back tone, her observing eye, her symbolism. Although others tell me this isn't necessarily copying, it was for me at the time.

This story changed my life. I was on the technical writing track, dead set against a creative writing major. I had always wanted to be a published novelist, but knew I'd never be good enough. So I set my major to Technical Writing instead, sure I'd end up as an editor somewhere. I was so stupid.

I submitted Clover to Touchstones, and two of my professors cornered me one afternoon, telling me how good the story was, and what the hell was I doing as a technical writing major? So I reconsidered.


What Are Your Touchstones?
I spent a lot of my time in college studying classical literature, learning from the masters. I ended up as the managing editor on the Touchstones staff, and remember reading through all the really bad submissions (not because they weren't a "match" for the magazine - they just weren't well written). I remembered my own bad submissions, and beginning at the bottom. And you know, I still feel like I'm at the bottom seven years out of college, three completed novels later. I'm not copying others anymore, and that's good. I used my touchstones - the excellent works of other writers - as stepping stones to something better for me: my own voice.

My point here today is that as writers, we must learn from something. There is nothing wrong with practicing our craft with bits and pieces of other ideas, voice, style, tone. Everything we read and study becomes a part of us, twists itself into our experience. I will always hold a special place in my heart for Annie Dillard and her style. She will forever flavor my writing, but she hasn't become my writing or my voice.

Davin explains:

We can sometimes fall into the trap of believing we are writing well simply because we sound like other writers. I myself often admit to wanting nothing more than to be a copycat of Tolstoy.

Having only developed the tools does not make one a great writer, however. I think to be truly satisfied with our own creations, we writers have to somehow make the connection between the words on the page and our own experiences, our own hearts. To be original, we have to turn to real life.

Tolstoy is one of Davin's most impressive touchstones, but I don't think he runs any danger of copying or plagiarizing Tolstoy, because he understands the importance of a writer's own voice, and what it means to to reach deep into ourselves when we write.

For me, there is a novel in every thought that runs through my mind, but it is only the thoughts and ideas that I grab hold of and make an intrinsic part of me that flower into a full-fledged, beautiful novel. And oh what work it takes, what stepping stones I proudly use to make it mine.


Question For The Day: What are some of your touchstones? Do you think it's a terrible concept to use other writings to help us along? Or do you think it's something no writer can avoid?

Oh, and it's Scott's birthday today. Drop him a note on his blog!


~MDA (aka Glam)

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Where is Originality Found?

Originality is a concept I wrestle with. On one hand, artistic attempts that rely too much on originality can end up being inaccessible or self-conscious. For those reasons, I usually don't try to be original when I'm writing myself. On the other hand, art involves invention. And, as a reader, discovering original writing that affects me is a bliss. With this latter thought in mind, I wanted to say a few things about where I think originality should be found.

As writers, we all know how important it is to read. Studying great writers, experiencing their stories, copying their language word for word is essential, at least in my opinion, if we want to develop the skills we need to write beautifully. But, what can sometimes happen is that, when we try to write our own stories, we find that we have adopted someone else's voice, or, worse yet, someone else's view of the world. We can sometimes fall into the trap of believing we are writing well simply because we sound like other writers. I myself often admit to wanting nothing more than to be a copycat of Tolstoy.

Having only developed the tools does not make one a great writer, however. I think to be truly satisfied with our own creations, we writers have to somehow make the connection between the words on the page and our own experiences, our own hearts. To be original, we have to turn to real life.

Because words are symbols, after all. "Chair" isn't really a chair. It's a collection of letters that are placed together to represent a chair. A real chair is that thing sitting off to my left, with its carved wood and its padded seat and its avocado green paint. Likewise, "love" isn't love, and "struggle" isn't struggle. Furthermore, my "struggle" isn't your struggle, and my "love" isn't your love.

When writing, I believe that we have to start with non-words. And, I think that's one reason why so many people have problems with cliches. (Really, I think there are far more cliches in writing than we acknowledge.) Cliches are the most obvious cases of stolen language. Vanda's hair was as golden as the sun. Whoever came up with that first made a beautiful comparison. But, chances are, everyone else who used that same line didn't make the same direct comparison. Rather, they stole language. In our perceptions, we have our own specific descriptions, our own comparisons, and our own way of relating to things before we limit those relationships with words. To be original, we have to access that source and then translate it into words. The words represent the thing rather than being the thing itself.*

The beauty of this--because make no mistake that this is HARD to do--is that as soon as we invent new language by translating our experience, we are suddenly able to distort our reader's perception of reality. Nowadays, don't we sometimes see golden hair that reminds us of the sun? Someone has made that connection for us. Someone has forever shaped the way we experience our world. That's a remarkable thing, and that, to me, is a compelling reason to try and be original.

How do you all feel about originality? Is it something that's important to you? And, what about you science fiction and fantasy writers? What is your source for originality? Do you think you must also look to life first, or does it come from a different place?

*There are probably artistic movements where the word itself is the art. Fine.

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Opportunity Cost

There's an old Jewish myth (actually a collection of related myths) about the golem, a man-shaped creature made of clay, created by a rabbi who was wise and holy. The golem remained inanimate, merely a lump of shaped clay, until the rabbi wrote one of the names of God on its forehead or on a slip of paper placed in the golem's mouth.

I think this is a nice metaphor for any creative act, and especially appropriate to writing. We gather together our raw materials (ideas about setting, characters, a dramatic scene and maybe a theme), shape them into a story and then, by our writing, breathe life into them. The mythical golem cannot speak; we also must give our story golem a voice.

In other, less prosy and off-topic words, we build stories by hand. We assemble them. At each stage of the process, we make decisions about the structure, shape and purpose of our story. With each decision we make, with each path we follow, we eliminate other possible paths, other possible shapes of our story. There are consequences to our decisions. Orson Scott Card refers to this as the "cost" of the decisions, and I think that's a useful way to think of them.

There is no perfect, Platonic ideal method of storytelling. Every storyteller (that is, every writer) has a unique reading history and therefore an individual vision of what a story is when properly written. That's the writer's voice. Even so, no matter how much we have read, we don't automatically have a fully-formed way of telling every story that we think of. We have to find it. We have to assemble our story method the same way we assemble our story elements. Which means turning our backs on any number of ways to tell the story.

I think that a lot of my own writing time is devoted to rejecting ideas, toying with possibilities and then abandoning them because, while they might work for some other writer or some other story, they aren't right for what I'm doing. And the more decisions I make, the more I hem my story in, limit the possible actions of my characters and kill off hosts of alternate endings. I make a sort of rule system for the story and have to obey those rules, focusing on what choices I have allowed myself.

On the whole, I think this is a good thing, because it helps me know what I'm doing while I'm writing. I've tried to rule out things that will harm the story. Herman Melville, in "Moby Dick", takes every other chapter to write an essay about whaling, or the color white, or whatever. Some of this is fascinating reading. Some of it is not. All of it pulls me out of the actual story. This is the cost Melville pays for sharing all his extensive research.

In my own book, I put in some long passages (not chapters, though) about religion, theology, history and architecture. I told myself this was setting and, since it interested me (and because I'd done loads of research) it would interest a reader. Maybe it would, but it came at the cost of pushing the actual story away from the reader, and that was a price I didn't want to pay, so I cut reams of text.

When my agent and I first discussed my book, one of the ideas he threw at me was to change it from a first-person narrative to a third-person narrative. This would solve one problem (that the narrator has to be present for almost all the action no matter which characters are involved), but at the cost of losing the immediacy of the protagonist's voice. That was too high a price, so I rejected the idea right off.

This is a long, rambly post, for which I apologize. My point, if I have one, seems to be that for each story we write, there are a large number of similar stories we chose not to write. Somewhere out there in the aether is a version of my story as told by the protagonist's wife, and also a version told by the villain, and also a version in third-person that flashes back and forth between Denmark and Germany, a version filled to the ceiling with details about 16th-century Europe and the Reformation. That I won't write any of these versions sometimes depresses me, but life is short and I think, well and truly, that I've chosen to write the version I will like the most.

Monday, August 24, 2009

Character First Impressions

Since it's Monday, I thought I'd bring up character first impressions. This post was inspired by Yat-Yee Chong's post on characters with unusual combinations.

A criticism I hate getting from readers is that I have made a character do something that really doesn't make sense, given their personality. This always makes me defensive. After all, I created the character. I should know her, it, or him better than anyone else. And, most likely, I do know the character better than anyone else, and she, it, or he would do something like that...I just didn't make that clear in the story.

What this comes down to (and Yat-Yee describes this well) is that readers are experiencing our characters in the sequence of the story, whereas we writers have the luxury of seeing all of the material that happens throughout our character's lifetimes, not just what's on the page. So, how can we provide these clues to our reader before they feel betrayed?

That's where the first impression comes in. As readers are discovering each character in our story, they are comparing them with one another, with real people in their lives, and probably with themselves. And, because most people attempt to understand things as soon as possible, they create judgments based on the first impressions.

If readers get three consecutive scenes where Albert is afraid of water, they will be suspicious if Albert suddenly dives off the pier to save is alien boyfriend from drowning. But, if Albert's first three scenes include one where he refuses to go into the water, one where he jumps cautiously into the deep end of the pool, and one where he sits on the edge of the pool with his feet dangling in the water, we're not quite as sure of what he'll do next. He may be willing to save Sbortfa'an, or he may have to hope that Sbortfa'an's alien family is nearby to do the saving for him...and that they aren't allergic to water. Albert now has a larger dynamic range with which we can work with.

If you want to have a character who is capable of performing a wider range of actions, I think you have to hint at the character's full range of possibilities early on, especially during those beginning pages where readers are shaping their first impressions of the character (the first 17 pages, to be exact*). If we establish absolute personality traits for a character, then I think we have to accept that they are going to stay that way unless some external force comes in later on to change them (and, naturally, this is one great way to develop a character).

Now, of course, this can work both ways. If we are systematic and plan ahead, if we know what we want our characters to do at the end before we have written the beginning, then we can plant the seeds to show what they are capable of. But, hopefully, the reader's experience will be the same whether we plan this forwards or backwards. Either way, we don't want to limit our characters' range unless that limitation is something that will help us later on.

Strange combinations of character traits can help us with this wide dynamic range. The example I've used before is Brod from Jonathan Safran Foer's book Everything Is Illuminated. Brod is an orphan girl in a Jewish town, and every man (and a few women) are desperately attracted to her. Yet, Foer describes Brod is short and skinny, to the point of looking perpetually sick. These are not traits that we usually associate with attractiveness, and because of that, Foer is able to create a character who is capable of more. She's both ugly and attractive at the same time. Foer hasn't committed her to being one or the other.

So, when sending your characters along their story trajectories, make sure you reveal their whole range of capabilities. Trapping them into a single personality type often means that you'll have to rely on an external force to change the character or do the character's work later on.

*Yes, it's 17 pages. Decades of scientific evidence have proven this without a doubt. Without a doubt!

Friday, August 21, 2009

Writing Less Efficiently

I'm going to break with my tradition of posting filler on Fridays, and instead I'd like to talk about use of words, specifically repetition of one word versus using synonyms. When I was a wee sprig of a boy in grammar school, one of my teachers claimed that repeating a word in a piece of prose was Bad Writing. For example, if you are writing about a wagon, you should not use the word "wagon" twice in the same sentence, or paragraph, or on the same page even. Instead of repetition, writers are supposed to follow the rule of "Elegant Variation," where you find synonyms for "wagon" and use those instead, or recast sentences to avoid naming the object in question. I heard this advice later on in college, and I've read it in books about writing, too. I know professional editors who also believe this is a good rule to follow. My opinion?

In a lot of instances, this rule is complete and utter bullshit. There, I've said it. Now I'll give an example of what I mean.

In researching this post, I ran across the article How to Write Less Efficiently, by Arthur A. Stern, The English Journal © 1967. I quote his wonderful article in part:

"The student comes away with the impression that repeating words and phrases is a Bad Thing. His writing, accordingly, may be dreary, ineffective, and unnecessarily hard to read. Let us see what might have happened if Abraham Lincoln had received such advice and taken it seriously. Lincoln is reported to have said

It is true that you may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you can't fool all of the people all the time.

We perceive immediately that Mr. Lincoln has succeeded rather poorly in avoiding repetition. No matter. We shall repair his rhetoric by using synonyms and pronouns as the handbooks recommend:

It is true that you may fool all the people some of the time; you can even deceive some of them on every occasion; but it is not always possible to trick everyone.

There. Doesn't the style sound familiar?"

Pardon me while I laugh again, because I find stuff like this to be hi-sterical. Okay, I'm done now.

Here's the thing: it is perfectly acceptable to use the same word to describe something as often as you need to. Why? Because sometimes, there is only one perfect word for that thing (object, action or whatever). Use it. The goal is to communicate your meaning to your reader, not to show that you own a thesaurus. While editors and writers are noticing that you've repeated yourself, your reader will be taking note of the point you're making, so You Win.

Here's a fine example of repetition, from D.H. Lawrence:

She remembered to have hated her father’s overbearing manner towards her gentle, humorous, kindly-souled mother. She remembered running over the breakwater at Sheerness and finding the boat. She remembered to have been petted and flattered by all the men when she had gone to the dockyard, for she was a delicate, rather proud child. She remembered the funny old mistress, whose assistant she had become, whom she had loved to help in the private school.

Note: unless you are deliberately repeating a sentence structure for effect, it's best not to begin sentences with the same word over and over. You fall into a repetitive rhythm which might lull your reader to sleep. All the usual caveats about that, too, of course.

Another good example of repetition is the "honorable men" speech from Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar."

Are you writing about an emotion, like guilt? You can refer to guilt with the word "guilt." You don't have to find absurd synonyms for it like "the miasma of regret" or "the rusting-through of my soul" or whatever. Please don't. Please, I beg of you. Don't. I'll come to your house and hit you. Hard.

Let's talk about dialogue tags, where this sort of thing rears its amazingly ugly head too often. If you find yourself writing, for example,

"...I said to the tall, handsome stranger"

or

"...I said to the red-haired dwarf"

instead of

"...I said to him"

or

"...I said to [Name of Character]"

then take a moment, take a breath, and calm down. You don't need to do this. First, you can probably cut every instance of "to [X]" after "...I said." Really, give it a try and see what happens. Clarity of prose, I'm betting. Second, you can probably eliminate about half your dialogue tags without losing your reader. Every line of speech does not require tagging. Your readers are bright. Third, those awkward descriptive tags that avoid pronouns or the character name are, well, awkward and frankly not a little silly. You look silly when you use them. Are you writing a comedy in a comic style? No? Then knock it off.

The thing to remember about synonyms, which is a thing that makes our language (no matter what your native tongue) so immensely fabulous and fun to play with, is that they are Not Direct Substitutes. Hot, sweltering, steamy, warm and blistering all have to do with heat, but they do Not All Mean Exactly The Same Thing. If you use that thesaurus, use your dictionary too. Nothing's worse than using a word that doesn't mean what you think it means. People will roll their eyes and say nasty things about you behind your back. Sometimes in front of you, too. So realize that there are shades of meaning in all of these words, and you should pick the word that best reflects what you mean in your writing. I suggest leaning on that word as much as you have to and leaving your thesaurus alone. See if your prose isn't clearer and more easily understood.

Last-minute addition: A contest!
Click here for details about a chance to pitch your novel to a collection of top-level agents! Obey the entry rules.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Holding Onto Your Idea



So you have an idea. Let's start at the beginning. I was in high school. I was a loner, bored, constantly looking for something to hide behind. I found reading the best place to go. Then I realized there was a book missing on my shelf. My book. All I could think about was a teenage girl waking up in the backseat of a car trying to remember how she got there, and wondering if it was for the best. Shiny idea!

So I wrote the book. Then I wrote it again. And again. And again. Then I left it alone for about 12 years, and wrote it again last year - twice. It still needs some major overhauling, but it's on its way to being query-able, or at least somewhere that I'm happy with it. Amazingly enough, through all of these years and drafts, the idea has stayed the same. No, the teenage girl never wakes up in the backseat of a car, but the idea that she's taken against her will, and then decides it's a great thing - that stayed.

Scott's post on Tuesday about Overwritten Prose, and then Davin's post yesterday about Story, got me thinking about initial ideas. Every book starts with one. My idea is usually a setting or an image, and I build a story around it, a huge complicated messy puzzle. I know some writers who begin with a theme or a character. Whatever comes to you, I want to urge you to hold onto it. Davin says:

When I think about what inspires me, most of the time it is a character, or a situation, or some small detail or phrase that I fall in love with. I get that bit of inspiration down on the page, and then I face the problem of shaping it into a story.

Then Scott says:

So my advice is simple: write directly, and just tell the story. Don't be fooled into thinking that you have to put onto paper something that looks like literature, or that you have to reach for grandiloquence with every sentence. You don't. Elegance is eloquence. Strive for clarity and know what you're writing about.

Great thoughts from great minds! First of all, with Davin's comment, we see that there's usually an idea that inspires us to start a story. Then we run into a problem of how to shape that story. His post asks the question of whether or not traditional plot structures and stories are really the way to go, or if we should stick to what we want to tell, no matter how it comes out. I think the problem I've run into with figuring out how to shape a story is keeping my idea interesting for the length of the novel. Easy to do with lots of devices, but oftentimes hard to keep it clear.

Scott hit a chord with me when he said to strive for clarity. I've heard this over and over, but I never thought of it in terms of my initial idea. Covering up my idea in fancy writing, no matter how beautiful or poetic, has never worked for me. I tried to do it twice with my first novel, which is why I ended up rewriting it over and over. I lost sight of my initial idea, lost in the forest of complicated plot structure, fancy time changes and flashbacks, pretty prose, secondary character plots, and on and on and on. What a mess. Where was my idea?

I firmly believe that when an idea comes to me, it generates from my subconscious, gathering bits and pieces of me one strand at a time until it emerges as something shiny and worthy of pursuit. Of course, there are ways to figure out if one should actually pursue these ideas (check out Scott's post, A Good Idea Is Hard to Find), but if I decide it's worth chasing, I write that initial idea down and tape it to my computer desk, or put it at the top of my manuscript so that I can see it every time I sit down to work on that story.

It's about clarity. Focus. This is why I map things out, as I talked about in my three-part post (Don't Dis the Map) on my personal writing blog. Mapping helps me flesh out my idea and keep it in line with everything else that's fighting to come to the stage. It's not so I can stick to a traditional plot and make my work formulaic. If anything, staying focused on my original idea keeps me creative as I strive to help it grow. Sometimes other ideas sprout off my initial idea, but I've found over and over that they are like a mirage, shimmering in the distance. It's best to stick to my compass.

I want to stress that every writer is unique, of course. We all work differently. So you tell me, do you keep track of your initial idea? Is it something you feel can add clarity to your work if you don't lose sight of it? Or is it just a springboard and nothing more?


~MDA (aka Glam)

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Down With Story

For today's post, let me start off by saying that I don't necessarily agree 100% with it. This is more of an experiment that I am kicking around, and I hope you can approach it with an open mind.

Lately, I've been feeling like the idea of having a story in our stories is problematic. Plot, character arc, rising action to a climax--is all this necessary? We're told that it is, but is it really?

When I think about what inspires me, most of the time it is a character, or a situation, or some small detail or phrase that I fall in love with. I get that bit of inspiration down on the page, and then I face the problem of shaping it into a story. And, really, that shaping step is sort of insincere. I've already recorded what I want to record, and the rest of it sometimes only manages to contort the original inspiration into something unnatural and unimpressive. Then, not only have I not created a moving story, but I've also buried that one small thing that I fell in love with in the beginning.

Usual when I write, I have a DVD playing off to the side, something that keeps me in a constant mood. "My Neighbor Totoro" or "Gosford Park" are a couple of my favorites, and I realize that the reason I like them is because the majority of these movies is all plotless. Really, nothing much happens until twenty minutes before the end, when some conflict finally emerges and the story suddenly races up that notorious plot chart. And, when these movies reach that big conflict, that's usually when I reach over and send the movie back to the beginning. I enjoy just having intimate stories moving along, and the big conflict pulls me out of that comfort zone.

So, since it's what I love, could I get away with writing a story that doesn't bother having that big conflict? Can I write a still life? Would people give it a chance?

In the end, and I truly believe this, writing is about entertainment. Whether it be on a deeply emotional level, or more of a light-hearted level, I enjoy books because they entertain me. So, if I can feel fully satisfied from watching only 70% of "Gosford Park", (more satisfied, in fact, than when I watch the whole thing) maybe it makes sense to stop writing a story when I have captured what I want to capture, rather than kneading it until it looks the way I'm told it's supposed to look.

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Overwritten Prose

Sometimes writers, especially new writers, feel that in order to write in a writerly or serious or studious manner, they must put on their Prose Stylist hats and churn out pages of paragraphs that are as fancy as possible. Every phrase must paint a 1,000-word picture for the reader, and plain language must be chased off the page. Because, they feel, good writing is elaborate. This is a mistaken idea.

Sometimes, yes, good writing is complex and elaborate and highly filigreed, filled with detail and running rhythms and rhymes and heaven knows what else. But most of the time, good writing is elegant and says only as much as it needs to say.

Suppose, for example, Arthur Author wants to say that one of his characters, Jack, is walking across the room to pick up a pen. Arthur sits down to his iBook and types:

Jack walked across the room and picked up a pen.

But perhaps Arthur feels that's boring, too plain and not literary. And he wants to put in Jack's emotion during the scene. So he types some more:

Jack walked angrily across the room, snatching up the pen in his fist.

"That's much better," Arthur thinks. "But what's this room? I haven't said a word about it yet." More typing:

Jack walked angrily across the dark blue carpeted floor of the sunlit library, glaring at the shelves of well-worn books that lined the walls as he snatched up the antique gold fountain pen from the walnut secretary that had been in his family for generations.

"That's brilliant," Arthur says. "If I could work a simile into this, it would be perfect."

Arthur Author has just clogged up a perfectly good sentence by overwriting it with detail that isn't part of the essential thought. The reader, when she hits this sentence, will have no idea at all what the important information is: Jack walked across the room and picked up a pen. There is too much going on all at once in Arthur's final version. The sense of the sentence has been buried under an avalanche of adjectives, adverbs and cliches. Most of what Arthur has written is beside the point.

Let's try a different example, the opening paragraphs of a short story.

Opening Paragraphs, Version One:

The low hills lying in rows across the dry, narrow valley of the Ebro were long and dirty off-white tinged with streaks of brownish yellow, like the exposed teeth of an old grinning plowhorse. This side of the dusty valley was hot as an oven; there was no relieving shade and no sheltering trees and the overheated adobe station was forever trapped between two sharp running lines of heat-shimmering train rails in the blistering afternoon sun. Close against the side of the lonely station there was the warm, choking shadow of the claustrophobic building and a still curtain, made of vibrantly-colored strings of brightly-painted bamboo beads, hung slantingly across the open door into the dark, mysterious bar, to keep out unwanted buzzing flies. The tall, athletic American in his light suit and hat and the beautiful, blonde girl with him sat at a small rickety table in the hot shade, outside the isolated building. It was very hot, like a desert, and the express from Barcelona would come chugging down the rails in forty minutes. It stopped briefly at this lonely junction for a spare two minutes and went to Madrid.

'What should we drink?' the girl asked quietly, wiping her glowing face with the back of one delicate hand. She had taken off her straw hat and put it on the round, white-painted table.

'It's pretty hot,' the man said tiredly.


Huh? How about this instead:

Opening Paragraphs, Version Two:

The hills across the valley of the Ebro were long and white. On this side there was no shade and no trees and the station was between two lines of rails in the sun. Close against the side of the station there was the warm shadow of the building and a curtain, made of strings of bamboo beads, hung across the open door into the bar, to keep out flies. The American and the girl with him sat at a table in the shade, outside the building. It was very hot and the express from Barcelona would come in forty minutes. It stopped at this junction for two minutes and went to Madrid.

'What should we drink?' the girl asked. She had taken off her hat and put it on the table.

'It's pretty hot,' the man said.


See the difference? Version Two is in fact the beginning of Ernest Hemingway's amazing short story, "Hills Like White Elephants." Version One is an immensely overwritten form of it. If you happen to prefer Version One of this, you need to sit down and pay attention.

Version One is purple prose, though I often see stuff that's a great deal worse than this, written in all seriousness. Nobody should write this way. It's simply too much. Every noun has a modifying adjective, every verb has an adverb, and every description has a bad simile. Too much.

Overwritten writing usually attempts to carry too much information, and becomes indistinct. If every noun or verb in a sentence is supposed to carry descriptive data (that is, has an adjective or adverb that is supposed to mean something important to the reader), it becomes difficult to figure out what's actually the subject of the sentence, what the point of the writing is. This is why we're told to strike out adverbs and excess adjectives: a sentence should, ideally, be about A Single Thing, and you should aim the reader at that one thing only. If you want to say more than one thing, or have a complex idea to get across, it is preferable to break your thoughts into more than one sentence, with one thought per sentence. You cannot say everything at once, and it's not polite to talk with your mouth full, anyway.

So my advice is simple: write directly, and just tell the story. Don't be fooled into thinking that you have to put onto paper something that looks like literature, or that you have to reach for grandiloquence with every sentence. You don't. Elegance is eloquence. Strive for clarity and know what you're writing about.

Monday, August 17, 2009

Will Pulling Back The Curtain Help Popularize Books?

Last week I was in Newport, Rhode Island attending a scientific research conference. Discussed topics included iron-sulfur cluster biosynthesis, heme transport, and my personal favorite, visualization of labile zinc in vivo. I was inspired by the groundbreaking work that was being done, but at the same time, I was frustrated. The fact was, a hundred and fifty scientists were sharing their passion with each other, instead of with the rest of the world.

Enter Julie & Julia, starring Meryl Streep and Amy Adams. I won't give away too much of the story, but one point that was made evident was that communicating our passionate pursuits to the general public was important in building popularity. And, I'm not talking about popularity for ourselves, but for the art form.

Think of all the television shows that have helped to create new markets. The Food Network, or HGTV. ER. NYPD Blue. The Deadliest Catch. By revealing the details of what it takes to get a job done, people become more interested in the job itself.

I love that book series like Harry Potter and Twilight have gotten millions of people to read again. But, right now, the downside of this is that the publishing world is more focused on finding only the blockbusters. I wonder if we, as writers, could get people to read a wider range of books by focusing more of our attention on explaining to laypeople what it takes to complete a book and get it published. This wouldn't be easy. I know a lot of us are still afraid even to admit to that we are actually writers. But, I really think if people better understand the vastness of the literary world we are building,including the struggles we face, they will be more willing to explore works by unknown writers, self-published books, and experimental fiction. By pulling back the curtain, people will see that it's not such a scary thing to read something they haven't heard of before.

What do you all think? Can we talk to the rest of the world about what we do?

Friday, August 14, 2009

Reading for Pleasure?

One of the most irritating things about being a writer is that, whenever I'm working hard on a project, I can no longer read for pleasure. Every book I pick up is something I treat as a textbook of some kind. I'm looking for hints about craft, for ways of doing things well. I also find myself being overly critical of whatever I'm reading, and having one-sided internal arguments with the authors when they've done something I wouldn't have done. Clearly, I am going insane.

I was trying to read "Moby Dick" because I'd read excerpts in college and I liked what I saw then, so I thought I should read the whole thing. But Melville apparently just wanted to write a nonfiction treatise on the American whaling industry, and thought he should wrap that in a dramatic story about Ahab and the sinking of the Pequod. It does not work, and his fictional story, which is a good story, is buried so far behind a wall of whaling lore that it's a struggle to find it. "Moby Dick" is 450 pages long, and should be divided into two books: the 150-page story of Ahab's vengeance and the 300-page book about whaling. I've put it back on the shelf. Maybe someday I'll finish it.

I also tried to read Junot Diaz' "The Brief Wonderous Life of Oscar Wao," a Pulitzer Prize-winning novel from last year. Diaz is a professor at MIT and I get the feeling that this book is more a lecture about the history of oppression in the Dominican Republic than it is a story. It's dressed up in an aggressive, urban hip voice that I found immediately off-putting, and it starts with a clumsy prologue that even has footnotes. I blame David Foster Wallace for this sort of book. I put it back on the shelf, too. It's supposed to be brilliant, so maybe someday blah blah blah redux.

It used to be that I could read simply for the pleasure of being told a good story, and I didn't so much care how that story was told. But as I concern myself more with the craft of writing, the nuts and bolts of storytelling, the less often I enjoy anything. This is not a good thing, and it's apparently a contagious condition. Mighty Reader is curious about my writing process and progress, so we have long, in-depth discussions about writing and structure, and she reports that she also now more readily sees possible flaws in books she reads, and her own enjoyment has diminished some. Happily, she still reads a lot more than I do, and more broadly, so hopefully the effects won't be so bad in her case.

My hope is that, when I'm done with my current revisions and am no longer worried about my own technique, I won't read everything with an eye to craft and the author's shortcomings. Because otherwise, being a writer will just suck and ruin one of the great joys of life.

Am I alone in this? Is anyone else getting diminishing returns on reading for pleasure as they focus more on their own writing?

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Clarity, Contest and a Concert

This is a three-part post today, none of the three parts connected but I wanted all of this out here anyway. We'll see how it goes.

Part 1: Clarity

I've been working on revisions to my novel, which an agent would like to submit for publication if I ever send him back the revised ms. Soon, Jeff, I promise. The biggest piece of advice I can give you about revisions at this point? Put down the pen (or step away from the keyboard) until you can answer the following questions, in one sentence each:

What does my protagonist want?
Why does he want it?
Who is stopping him from having that?
What does that person want?
What are the consequences of the protagonist getting/not getting what he wants?


They seem like simple, obvious questions, but I really think that most of us can't--at first, anyway--give simple, clear answers to these questions. And that means that our stories themselves lack clarity. Oh, heck, let's not say "lack clarity;" let's go ahead and say that our stories tend to be vague when it comes to characters and motivations and theme, because we ourselves are vague about it. If someone tries to pin us down about what our characters are like, we wriggle around and claim that we can't explain our protagonists, because they're complicated, well-rounded characters. Which is just bosh. We can't explain them when we don't know them. So spend as long as you need to figure out who your characters are. When you do know, the story itself (in my experience) becomes crystal clear and you see immediately what parts of your plot or prose work and what parts don't, and you'll be able to tell the story with narrative clarity for which your agent and editor and readers will all thank you.

Part 2: Contest

Barbara Kingsolver, author of "The Poisonwood Bible" among other very good books, is having a contest for unpublished novelists. The Bellwether Prize for fiction consists of a $25,000USD cash payment to the author of the winning manuscript as well as guaranteed publication. The works must address social justice, which does not mean it has to be literary fiction; I believe genre fiction is also allowed. After all, Ursula K. LeGuin has been a past judge for the prize, and we all know about her. So check it out, socially-conscious authors!

Part 3: Concert

This isn't writing-related at all, but accordion virtuoso Maggie Kim has liver cancer and needs a transplant. She also needs the money for the transplant, so some of her friends are having a benefit concert. If you're in Seattle or thereabouts, come down for it:

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Pain, Gain, and Avoiding Both

Something I see all the time while surfing writing websites and blogs when I should be working (like right now), is a writer vehemently defending the weaknesses of his work. We are all guilty of that; goodness knows I am. But, as the old saying goes, argue for your weaknesses and, sure enough, they're yours.

What do I mean by "defending weaknesses?" It goes like this:

Writer: Hey, did you guys read my WIP?

Reader1: Yeah. What's up with this Jonas guy? I don't get why he killed that bear.

Writer: He had to. It shows the change in his character.

Reader1: Really? 'Cause it just seemed random and senseless. And you misspelled "grizzly."

Writer: You just didn't get it. Can you read it again?

Reader2: I agree; the bear business made no sense at all. And Jonas didn't change so much as he just did weird stuff all of a sudden.

Reader3: Yeah, why's he suddenly all pissed off and stuff?

Writer: Did you read the book I sent, or someone else's? It's all about his dad, right?

Readers1-3: Huh? His dad's like...the bear? Is this symbolism?

Writer goes on to explain for half an hour what's going on in the book, and when the readers finally understand what he intended, he congratulates himself on having written a fine novel. Time to work on that query letter!

Here's the thing: When a trusted, intelligent, well-read person (or a group of such people) reads something you wrote and can't figure it out, the problem is very likely not with their reading.* The problem is with your writing. This is true for query letters, too. If you have to explain what you mean, then what you have written doesn't mean what you think it does. You will have to rewrite it. Period.

We all resist rewriting. We all resist the idea that what we have already written isn't perfect, isn't the best we can do. But sometimes it's not perfect, or it isn't even close to saying what we think it says. Yes, sometimes readers are lazy or do miss the point, but if you are consistently being told that something makes no sense or isn't well written, you ought to probably prick up your ears at that warning and take a good look at your novel.

Hearing that you've made mistakes or not been clear in your writing is hard. Fixing mistakes, plot holes, poor characterizations, muddled themes, unclear conflicts or weakly defined protagonists is hard work. It's painful. It's time consuming and can be disheartening. But. We have to do it. There are two very important benefits to going back to something and fixing its flaws. First, the book will be better for it. That's the most important thing, right? But the longer-term benefit is that we become better writers when we struggle and suffer and fix our mistakes. Usually, we learn enough to not make that particular mistake ever again, which saves time and effort the next time we sit down to write.

The only thing you gain by defending your weaknesses is the guarantee that you'll have those same weaknesses in the next thing you write. So if you find yourself giving a lengthy defense or explanation of your novel to someone who's read it, stop for a moment and ask yourself if maybe the problem is the novel itself. Be brave and honest about this. If the book needs work, go to work and make it better.

*Unless you're part of the French Symbolist school, in which case your readers aren't supposed to understand it. You lot can stop reading this post right now.

Monday, August 10, 2009

Hinging On Three


“They say a person needs just three things to be truly happy in this world: someone to love, something to do, and something to hope for” ~ Tom Bodett

Three can be a good number for me, or a bad number. It can be magic or tragic. In the case of my novels, it has been tragic every single time. Always a huge obstacle. The dreaded Chapter Three is what makes or breaks me. I'm not sure if anybody else has struggled with this weird phenomenon, but it seems to me that Chapter Three is where a novel either soars or plummets to a sickening splat.

Chapter Three is often where I either stop reading a book, or keep reading. Chapter One is almost always a good hook. Chapter Two I'm willing to put with a lot if Chapter One was amazing. But Chapter Three - well, if it sucks, let's face it. I'll probably toss the book aside. So what does this mean?

Chapter Three is a HINGE.


I like the quote beneath the picture. It tells me something about humanity and happiness. I'm guessing that most readers want the same general things from a novel that they want out of life. Most readers aren't looking for a depressing, sad tale. Even if they know the story is depressing (you know, like Hamlet depressing), they know they'll probably get some sort of good message out of it, or the journey will take them somewhere rich and meaningful - something that will help them learn more about themselves and life in the process. That's the point of a novel, isn't it? To entertain, to make us feel, sometimes to even change us.

So your first three chapters should probably give the reader three things:

Someone to love - at least one character your reader can relate to and care about

Something to do
- the emergence of a theme or story line showing your reader there's an amazing journey of emotions up ahead

Something to hope for - an often complex complication (um, lots and lots of tension) promising something to root for until the end

So there you go. If you haven't accomplished those by Chapter Three, you most likely have a problem. Chapter Three often falls into the range of chapters or pages an agent or editor will ask for. The first three chapters are often a good snippet to give your beta readers to see if they're interested in the entire book. They could also serve as a good stopping point for a first draft, to see if you want to continue with the plot and characters.

Also, if you don't section your novel into chapters, the first "three chapters" end up in the first 6 - 10 thousand words of the novel, at least from what I've found in my own writing.

Question For The Day: This is just my experience with Chapter Three. Do you feel the same? Or has Chapter Three posed no particular threat or problem to you?


~MDA (aka Glam)

Friday, August 7, 2009

Telling Details Versus Meaningless Trivia

We all struggle to build realistic, compelling worlds for our readers. We want readers to experience our stories as real life, or an amazing magical simulacrum of real life, anyway. We wish to give our readers a picture of our characters and the places through which they move, and the only way to do that is by describing our characters and settings.

There is a wide range of opinion about how detailed your descriptions should be to accomplish this feat. I'm going to try staying out of that discussion today. What I'd like to ramble about for a while instead is the kind of detail we write into our stories. The worth of those details to our readers, if you will.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "trivia" as trifles, things of little consequence. The OED gives several definitions of "detail," but here's what I consider the most pertinent one: A minute or subordinate part of a building, sculpture, or painting, as distinct from the larger portions or the general conception. I'm going to expand that definition to include people, landscapes, objects or whatever is visible in a scene.

Detail versus trivia

I think that when we lard a scene over with descriptions of every visible object, and list inventorially the contents of every room or the costume of every character and try to "paint a picture," we are usually just giving a lot of trivia to the reader. Which is to say, if you present your reader with a list of fifty household goods or another list of twenty articles of clothing, can you really expect her to remember all of that stuff? Maybe, if the descriptions you give your readers are telling. To resort to the OED again, "telling" is effective, forcible, striking. Your descriptive details must mean something in the context of the story to be memorable, to be useful to the reader.

How do you know the difference? I think that if you can cut a detail and you lose no information about character, theme or story, you've just cut meaningless trivia. On the other hand, if your description points to something beyond itself, it has meaning to the reader.

Imagine a scene between two men. One of them is immaculately dressed in an expensive tailored suit, and the other is wearing older, off-the-rack clothes that are getting a bit tired and threadbare. You can describe the well-dressed fellow from his $100 haircut down to his $400 shoes, and then describe the other fellow in a similar fashion, from his grown-out Supercuts down to his scuffed Payless oxfords. That's a lot of description, and taking that kind of time in your narrative will bring your story to a full stop.

What you can do instead is to show one or two telling details of their clothes. Man One offers to shake hands with Man Two. Man Two notices the fine cut of Man One's suit, then looks down and sees that he's missing a button from the cuff of his own suit coat and pulls his hand away, putting it behind his back in embarrassment. Or something like. The reader has seen Man One's confidence and better dress, as well as Man Two's relative place in society and how he feels about it. Four birds with one stone, as it were.

Another example would be the dinner party in "Little Women." We get just enough about the dresses the girls are wearing to know that, while they are the March's finest dresses, they are also not so fine as the girls could wish. And the bit about Jo's gloves is brilliantly done and reinforces both Jo's and Meg's characters.

One other real problem with long, detailed descriptions is that, once you've dumped all the details on your reader, you can't usually invoke those details later on and impart more meaning to them farther along in your story. The details haven't stood out (weren't telling) when first mentioned, so the opportunity to have them be effective and possibly symbolic has been lost. Be sparing with your descriptions and parcel them out as required, but no more.

So you might take a few minutes and look around your scenes and ask yourself what matters in the way of description. Ask yourself what single detail of character or setting would deepen the meaning of the scene, and which details are merely trivia and set dressing. A few well-placed and thoughtful details are, as the saying goes, worth a thousand words.

Thursday, August 6, 2009

The Misunderstood Novella


London - Auction - World's Smallest Books ~ March 9, 2006. The entire collection was expected to fetch around £60,000.


Novella. It's not a small book, a short novel, or easy to write.

I recently read a post on Chronicles of a Novice Writer titled Novellas - Real or Myth? This got me thinking about novellas and how many writers misunderstand them completely. They are not a myth, and they are not just based on word count. (Hint, they can be longer than 40 or 50k, or shorter). Here's a generalized rundown of word count for you so we know how things stand. This, of course, discounts general word counts for more specific genres like Young Adult and Children's Literature.


Micro Fiction
up to 100

Flash Fiction
100 - 1,000

Short Story
1,000 - 7,500

Novelette

7,500 - 20,000

Novella
20,000 - 50,000

Novel
50,000 - 110,000

Epics & Sequels
over 110,000


Novellas are a genre in their own right. I tried to find some good information about them on the Internet, but didn't find a whole lot. From his essay, Briefly, the Case for the Novella, George Fetherling (author of the novella, Tales of Two Cities) says it best:

If size were the only consideration, however, there might be reason to revive what American magazine and pocketbook publishers of the 1940s and ’50s called a novelette. We can’t do this, however, because the term doesn’t take complexity into account. The novella isn’t simply longer than even a long short story and shorter than a novel, it’s also more complex than the first but not so complex as the second—in structure, in characterization: the works. Cariou is dead right in pointing out that the novella “is most often concerned with personal and psychological development rather than with the larger social sphere [and] generally retains something of the unity of the short story [but also] the more highly developed characterization and more luxuriant description” of the novel.

I found it interesting that novellas are generally categorized as being serious in nature. Perhaps this is because they deal with personal and psychological development. They often lack subplots, large casts of characters, and usually take place in one location. They are unified, as one source from mantex.co.uk indicates:

The essence of a novella is that it has a concentrated unity of purpose and design. That is, character, incident, theme, and language are all focussed on contributing to a single issue which will be of a serious nature and universal significance.

Many of the classic novellas are concerned with people learning important lessons or making significant journeys. They might even do both at the same time, as do Gustave von Eschenbach in Thomas Mann's Death in Venice and Gregor Samsa in Kafka's Metamorphosis - both of whom make journeys towards death.


I set out to find some good examples of novellas. I found a fun site that keeps a growing list of most "classic" novellas.

novellas.org

My friend Marisol gave me some good examples that she's read.

The Night Watch books by Sergei Lukyanenko
Apt Pupil by Steven King

Two of my favorite novellas are:

The Awakening by Kate Chopin (read it online here)
Breakfast at Tiffany's by Truman Copote

And can I just say that I hate how Amazon describes Breakfast at Tiffany's as a short novel. Come on, people.

You know, I like short. A novella is something I can curl up on the couch with and read in an afternoon. It quickly satisfies my craving for good fiction, complex characters, and rich settings. As for writing a novella, I'm thinking I might tackle one for my next work! The idea of writing something tight and unified, filled with symbolism and focused on a serious subject - that's not 80,000 words - is appealing.

Pimp My Novel did a post awhile ago about how things specific things sell. I'm not so sure a novella would be easy to sell as a first book, but it wouldn't hurt to write one! I can't imagine that it would be any easier to write than a novel. In fact, it would probably be more challenging to make all that focus work. Focus is good.

Question For The Day:
Have you misunderstood novellas in the past? Do you have any favorite novellas? Have you written one?


~MDA (aka Glam)

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

The Wild Grass

Forgive me for being self-indulgent today. Moreso, than usual. My maternal grandmother, Kimchaa Chumnanrob, passed away on Monday in Thailand at an unknown age. She was someone I wrote about often, and this story is dedicated to her.

The Wild Grass

Kimchaa Sulakorn saw the python first. These days, the old woman thought of sleep, not as comfort, but as a burden. So early one morning, she ignored the advice of her daughter, urged her body out of bed, and walked into the kitchen where she found the snake stretched across the vinyl floor.

The python’s scales were the color of canal water. Its body reached across the room. Its head was by the doorway, and its tail ran beneath a table that held six overturned bowls like six hopeless, abandoned eggs.

Kimchaa’s lips puckered. She squinted her ancient eyes. She made her way back to the bedroom and shook her sleeping husband.

“There’s a snake in the kitchen,” she said, speaking with her usual, certain way: her face was turned toward the sky outside, and when she finished speaking, she waited, motionless, as if her voice traveled slower than the normal speed of sound.

Nothing happened. Her husband flipped over from his stomach onto his back and stretched his legs out from beneath the blanket. His face twisted as if he smelled the eucalyptus oil she had rubbed over his shoulders the night before. But, he didn’t open his eyes.

Kimchaa saw her husband asleep beneath the wooden beams of the roof, and she saw the green concrete floor that was fractured from countless, repeated steps. The details of the room saturated her vision, and for a moment, she was an object looking at other objects. (She would wonder, later, if death had already been in the room at this point. But for now, it was nothing more than a pause in her tired mind.) She started to move before her thoughts awoke, and soon the thoughts returned, and she continued, once again, to look for someone to help her.

Her son-in-law, Doon, was washing himself by the water tank, and when he came inside, she pulled him toward the kitchen. Doon saw the snake and tensed in such a way that his towel almost fell. He said words his wife usually didn’t allow. And, after leading Kimchaa out into the hall, he went to his room and emerged again, dressed, with a broomstick in his hand.

Kimchaa watched as Doon went outside and poked at the snake through the window. From her spot she saw the man jab on one side of the wall and the snake slowly move on the other side. It lifted its head. Its gray tongue flickered in and out. Then, the enormous python started to make its way out into the hall.

Through the patio and past the washing machine and the line of drying clothes, the snake glided along the gray brick enclosure that surrounded the house. Kimchaa’s daughter, Nan, was just returning from feeding the catfish, and she screamed and dropped her bag of grain when she saw the snake coming towards her.

“Stand back!” Kimchaa yelled. Her daughter picked up the bag, crossed over to the other side of the road, and stood in the shade of a neighbor’s house.

Doon had a pan and a metal spoon in his hands now, and he banged them together to keep the snake moving. Children from other houses looked up. They abandoned their toys and Coca-cola bottles and arranged themselves along the roadside. Their eyes followed the snake as it slithered out of the courtyard. Then, one by one, the children started to help. They ran back to their houses and returned with pots and spoons. They banged them so loud that the chickens scattered under the houses, the catfish swam to the depths of their ponds, and Kimchaa’s senses became filled with the young vitality of life.

The snake made its way into an overgrown field that lay between two houses. It was invisible now, but the villagers followed its movement through the tall grass, and followed the sweeping sound it made, until it was so far away that they couldn’t tell if the movement and the sound were due to the snake or simply due to the wind.
That was the morning Kimchaa’s husband died. She returned to the kitchen and was eating breakfast when the realization struck her.
“Go and try to wake your father,” she told Nan. “He may be dead today.”
Kimchaa listened to her daughter’s voice in the bedroom. Nan called her father, quietly at first, but soon her voice got louder and more urgent. Then, when Doon was also called into the bedroom, Kimchaa wondered if the snake had come from the afterlife, and whether an angel could take such hideous form. Listening to her daughter’s voice, Kimchaa continued to eat. She accepted her husband’s death as the obvious ending to the life he lived, and she knew, now more than ever, that her remaining time would be half empty. She ate, thinking to herself, “I will eat to stay alive, even though there’s no reason for it.”

* * *

They stored the old man’s ashes in the same temple where his father’s and grandfather’s ashes were kept. All of the men had good fortune, the neighbors decided. His father died at age eighty-seven, his grandfather at age eighty-two, and he had lived for ninety-three years, long enough to see his children marry, and to teach his grandchildren the virtues of poverty.
Kimchaa wore the black clothes of mourning. She ignored her daughter’s advice to get more sleep and refused to go for walks. Each day, despite the heat, she sat on the porch and crocheted, and soon her doilies collected around her like cobwebs.
Even after two months, her appetite did not return. The food that her daughter cooked felt dry and brittle in her mouth. She did not want the energy. She did not want the nutrients. Yet, driven by the force that had kept her from crying, she ate and ate and ate.
When the dry season arrived the following year, her belly hung over her sarong and her knees swelled whenever she walked. Her eyes looked as sad as they always did, but now they seemed to have stopped seeing, as if their only purpose was to reflect the sky through the open windows she stared through every day.
Each morning, the sun rose and baked the courtyards and the houses, until the people came in from their chores and fell asleep on the cool concrete. Kimchaa still wore black, but she no longer crocheted. She limped out of bed each morning, ate breakfast in the kitchen, then sat on her living room floor beside her husband’s empty chair and swatted mosquitoes until the sun set.
“Nothing brings me any joy! It would be better if I just died!” she said whenever Nan took the time to sit with her. The daughter, old as well these days, would tug her sarong up to her thighs to cool them while she sat. She stared out the same window that her mother stared out, both of them watching the amorphous shapes of clouds.
The days passed, one by one, like the repeated washing of a shirt. In the morning they were stiff and dry, by the evening they were loose and moist, and over time they became soft and worn and transparent. So, too, the anguish of her husband’s death was worn away in Kimchaa’s mind. She no longer wished for that day back, when she could shake her husband harder and wake him, if only for a moment. She did not miss not being there when he died. She started to recount the story of the python, and her husband’s death was nothing more than an introduction to the story. “On the day my husband died…” she would say, and she would tell the listener about the snake.
But, though her mind became more comfortable everyday, and her eyes gave the impression of seeing again, the rest of her body seemed to continue on its journey to join her husband. Kimchaa developed diabetes. She could feel herself having to pee, and before she could crawl to the bathroom, her sarong would be wet, and there would be a sticky puddle of urine underneath her.

Doon and Nan collected money and made the necessary home improvements to accommodate the aging woman. They put tiles on the living room floor and screens over all of the windows. They built a second bathroom with a toilet, so that Kimchaa wouldn’t have to squat with her bad legs.
“Nothing brings me joy! It would be better if I just died!” Kimchaa repeated as usual, but her daughter didn’t have time to listen anymore. Working to recover the money they spent on the house, Nan tore out the grass from the unused field, imported tangerine trees, and sold the fruit at the market. Each day, when she returned from the orchard with her heavy baskets, she arranged them in a circle around her and counted the tangerines one by one. She did this in her mother’s field of view, and the old woman watched, counting along silently until they got through all the baskets.
When Kimchaa’s knees got worse, she stopped going into the kitchen. Nan brought food over in the ceramic bowls and placed them on the ground in front of her. Kimchaa would pour broth over the rice so that she could swallow it. She picked out the sweetest dishes, since that was the only thing that contented her. And, on the rare occasions when Doon’s mother would visit and warn Kimchaa that she needed to lose some weight, Kimchaa said, “It’s nobody’s business!” and she slurped up a bowlful of sugary salad dressing after dumping the vegetables on the ground.
Her story of the python became the story of her husband, telling children who bothered to listen about the man’s life in the military and his working as a delivery man in the years after the war. Kimchaa told the children about the day she accepted his marriage proposal after refusing to speak to him for an entire year. As she spoke, dark red liquid dribbled down her chin from the betel chew she once used to make her teeth as black and lovely as onyx. She leaned on her hands, which were deformed by arthritis. “He died on the day the snake came into the house,” she said, and what once was the beginning of her story now became the end.

She remembered her husband’s love—the way he attracted her to their first private meeting with a trail of jasmine winding from her door to the lake, the pink topaz he left in her slipper the first time she stopped speaking to him, the fields of rice he harvested for her parents when she accused him of not loving her family. Whenever she was angry, he was able to calm her down, his eyes as patient as the moonlit lake, until the day he died peacefully in his sleep. A death deserving of a man so calm.

Kimchaa woke each day, crawled into her spot on the living room floor, and her daughter brought out her breakfast and placed it on the tiles as if she were feeding a dog. Kimchaa poured broth over her rice so that she could swallow it. When she felt the urge to pee, she crawled to the bathroom, but more often than not, her sarong would be wet, and there was a puddle of sticky urine beneath her.

In the hot afternoon, Nan returned home with the baskets full of tangerines. She arranged them in a circle around her, spilling some out for counting. Kimchaa looked out and counted silently along. She didn’t think she would die in her sleep. No, not a woman as stubborn as she was. For the last time, her senses were flooded with the existence of objects around her. She wondered how long it would take to count the tangerines. She wondered how long the trees would bear fruit.

("The Wild Grass" was previously published in Rosebud.)

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

When My Characters Talk to Each Other...

...they sometimes don't say what they're supposed to say. And that really annoys me. It goes like this:

I'm writing a scene. This scene has a specific purpose. I need to convey to the reader that there is conflict between the two characters in the scene, and I need to show that conflict and what's behind it. I also need to set up the next scene. This scene also has to be structured so that my protagonist is active in it, making a forward move with his life. So I put my protagonist in a hallway with the other character, and tell them to talk.

They do not, however, discuss the point of contention between them. No, they chat about all sorts of stuff that's really pointless. Shut up and get on with it, I say to them, striking out all of the things they've just said.

Let's try it again, shall we, boys? Off my pen goes, skipping across the page, quotation marks and attributions left and right, and when I stop to read what I have wrought, I see that once more my two characters are chattering away about pleasant things that have nothing to do with this scene.

One basic problem, of course, is that I'm trying to have my characters speak like real people, who rarely (if ever) get to the point. Real conversations are almost never direct, and real people almost never bring up actual conflict. Why? Because they're real people, and conflict is really unpleasant.

A more clever writer than I could show the conflict in the spaces between the pleasantries (there's some very nice dialog between Charles Darnay and his uncle in "A Tale of Two Cities" that speaks volumes through what remains unsaid), but I'm stuck with my own level of cleverness and so I'd like to twist my characters' arms and just have them say the words I have planned for them.

What they keep saying is stuff like:

"Oh, that Gary isn't such a bad guy, once you get to know him. You should give him a break. I've known him for years."

"Really, well, if you can vouch for him, that's saying something."

"He likes you okay, I think. Hey, are you hungry? Wanna grab a bite?"


when what I really need them to say is more like:

"What's with you and Gary?"

"I hate that guy. I don't trust him."

"Why? He's one of my best friends."

"I don't trust you, either."


That's more like it. Though an even better (and far less "real world" realistic) way to do it would be for my protagonist to grab the other guy's arm and say, "I don't trust you or Gary." It's quicker, it's got physical action (way better than dialogue for showing character) and it gets to the heart of the conflict. It seems so obvious, too.

I have a theory that I write this kind of dialogue-that-goes-nowhere whenever I'm uncomfortable with the conflict between characters. I don't want them talking about this stuff. Which, perversely enough, means that the conflict is something I should have more of in the book.

Which brings me to the real point of this post: Are there ideas you shy away from in your stories? Do you think your stories would be better or worse if you pursued those ideas instead of avoiding them?