Like a lot of people, I'm thrilled that The Beatles albums are finally available on iTunes. I've never been one for CD's, even before the MP3 era kicked in a few years ago, and so I've been gradually building my comparatively miniscule and haphazard music library almost exclusively buying songs one by one from some guy named Steve Jobs. Anyway, up until recently, one of the few artists whose work wasn't available on iTunes was probably the most popular entertainment act of the 20th Century, and at long last, I can start getting actual Beatles songs rather than others covering their songs. I'm super poor right now, so I'll have to wait until after my birthday and Christmas to collect some iTunes gift cards to suppliment my catalogue with these missing favorites of mine.
One of my favorite Beatles songs is "Hey Jude", written by Paul McCartney. It's one of those good songs to play when you're feeling depressed. It can lift up your spirits at a time when you're feeling particularly low, and for me, that's worth the $1.29 it costs to download it. In anticipation of getting this and other songs in a month or so (yes, I'm that poor), I was perusing the internets and reading up on some of my favorite Beatles songs, and I noticed an interesting note on this one.
The story McCartney tells is that the song was for John Lennon's son Julian, as at the time Lennon and his wife were getting divorced, and McCartney felt bad for the boy whose parents were splitting, and he wrote the song for him. Lennon, who really liked the song (at that point in their relationship, Lennon and McCarthy liking each other's songs was particularly rare), and he thought that the song was for him during this tumultuous time in his life. McCartney told Lennon that he had actually wrote the song for himself. Still others have speculated that the song was written for them or other people, which I suppose is common to fans of music.
We have a tendency to self-apply things in our lives with the pieces that move us emotionally. In order to establish that connection with an artistic work, sometimes we have to find a way to convince ourselves that the artist had us in mind when they created it. Not literally, but in some spiritual or metaphysical way.
As an "artist" in my own medium of writing, I utilize my own experiences and the people in my life into my writing all the time. I realize that, when it works, the passage might be a representation of myself or someone I know. But to the reader who has no knowlege of me or anyone in my life, it's possible for them to imagine that I'm actually writing about them, and in some curious way, my writing has brought me and them closer together.
Anyway, The Beatles should provide some good writing music to listen to, and hopefully give me some inspiration.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Updates on Upcomings
It's been a while since I posted last, so I thought I would leave an update on what I'm working on now. I've finished working on my short late-80's adventure novel series, Famous Adventurers Correspondence School, and am in the long and often trying process of attempting to get it published. I am optimistically hoping to have it ready to go out by early next year, so we'll see.
In the meantime, I'm busy working on the sequel to my last novel, The Other Side of the Gate. I've always envisioned TOSotG to be the first part of a five-part series, and given the length of the series it seemed like a good idea to start up the second book as soon as possible, despite the fact that it's not necessarily intended to be my next book published. The sequel is called The Empty Sea, and I will be posting updates on and about it as I go along. I am already well beyond the early stages of writing it, and am very excited about the direction that the story is taking me.
I hope everyone has had a good summer and is looking forward to a hopeful autumn!
In the meantime, I'm busy working on the sequel to my last novel, The Other Side of the Gate. I've always envisioned TOSotG to be the first part of a five-part series, and given the length of the series it seemed like a good idea to start up the second book as soon as possible, despite the fact that it's not necessarily intended to be my next book published. The sequel is called The Empty Sea, and I will be posting updates on and about it as I go along. I am already well beyond the early stages of writing it, and am very excited about the direction that the story is taking me.
I hope everyone has had a good summer and is looking forward to a hopeful autumn!
Friday, May 28, 2010
Week of Films
For anyone who is interested, I will be at the Phoenix Comicon this weekend on Saturday, May 29th, as part of the Squishy Studios contingent for the showing of our comedy/horror short, Zombie Team Building. I'm also going to be at the Film Stock Film Festival in Tempe on Thursday, June 3rd for the Squishy Studios showing of our 40's-era adventure comedy, Masters of Daring. If you're at one or the other of these events, try to track me down. I'll give you a prize (probably not, but if you tackle me to the ground and mug me, you might win an empty wallet!).
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Word Picture
As any writer can tell you, there are innumerable ways to write prose (poetry too, but that's not really in my wheelhouse, so I'll stick to what I know here). Besides genre, talent and possibly era, one thing that makes us readers prefer one author over another is their writing style. Telling a story through writing is often times very tricky, because creating an image in the reader's mind of settings, characters and events, all in a vivid yet succinct fashion, is what makes a novel unique compared to other storytelling mediums such as film or music.
I like to think there are no right or wrong ways to tell a story - yes, there really are a whole lot of wrong ways, but I prefer to consider them more specialized to the author rather than bad writing (which is why I'd make a horrible creative writing teacher or a literary critic). While some writing styles might be ... ill-advised, let's say, it doesn't mean that there is only one way to write a narration "correctly".
A few people who have read my previous work have remarked that I spend less time describing the environment of the story than other authors. I've heard nobody cite this as a complaint, but more of an observational comparison. It's true that I don't utilize as much of my word count on describing things in my story as other authors I've read. My descriptions of characters are often vague, particularly of primary characters, and my narrative often offers less of a physical description of the story's environment than one might be accustomed to. I would have to say that both of these qualities of my writing style are deliberate.
Coming, to some extent, from a filmmaking background, I am accutely aware of a story's pacing, and I am constantly concerned with a narrative dragging. Particularly in moments of high drama or action, I believe that it can really bog down a story when paragraph after paragraph are spent describing in tremendous detail in painting a word picture of events. Keeping a balance of brevity and imagery during important moments in a story is one of the great challenges of novel writing.
It's also important, I think, to notice what perspective the narrative is coming from. For my stories, it is commonly from a single protagonist's point of view, and so the narration itself should reflect that. If our hero is battling a dragon, he or she isn't necessarily going to be noticing how the creature's "blood-soaked scales are glistening in the sunlight like the sheen of a thousand polished aegis shields from a legion of soldiers marching to battle". My view would be that our hero should not be trying to figure out the most poetic metaphor for the shine on the dragon's hide - they should we worried instead about ducking its fire-breath.
In addition, it's as much for me a question of personal preference as anything. Someone mentioned that female authors tend to be more verbally descriptive, and maybe it's true (though it's hard to discount other male authors like JRR Tolkein in that respect). My own personal view as a reader is, that I've seen a sunset before - I don't need half a page of flowery descriptives to tell me what one looks like. I feel like often-times authors like to show off how poetic they can be with their writing in this way, but as a reader, I prefer to fill in the gaps with my own imagination. The real excitement for me comes from the unfolding of the story's events, and especially in the nature of the characters themselves.
Describing the characters is even more down this path for me. I draw pieces of myself in almost every character I create, but I suspect that even those closest to me don't fully comprehend what part of me I draw them from. What characters are supposed to do, in my opinion, is allow the reader to find parts of themselves to relate to them. If the reader can't relate to the character on some level, then there's no real connection between them.
Look at it this way, when you're reading a story, in your own head, what do the character's voices sound like? I know that for me, in every story I read, every character's voice, male and female, sounds like my own. If the description of their voice says that it's low and raspy, or high-pitched and nervous, or with a thick accent, it still sounds like my voice with those properties added. It's how I subconsciously connect with the characters, so that they sound like a person I can relate to on some level.
In the same vein, when I'm allowed to fill in the blanks based on some general guidelines on how a character looks, then I'm free to create an image of the character in my head that I'm comfortable with. It might be very different from any other reader's image, but that's the beauty of novels. In a movie, we're stuck with whomever the casting director thought was good for the role, whether they're right for it or not. In novels, we can custom cast every part, and build every set and location ourselves, in our own mind - if the author allows us that freedom.
Obviously, this can be taken to an extreme, as a lack of descriptions can dull our view entirely of the characters and the world. I should also add that I too like to strut my flowery pen now and again as much as the next writer. But I feel like such things are the whipped cream of the meal. A chef should add just enough garnish to offer some extra flavor, but don't go overboard, because the diner might grow sick of it.
Anyway, that's how I feel about it. I don't know how controversial such a stance would be to an established critic or professor on the subject. They might tell me that I'm wrong to suggest it, and that my writing is bad because of it. They might even be right. But an author should always write for themselves above the dictates of others, if only so that they will have at least one fan of their work.
I like to think there are no right or wrong ways to tell a story - yes, there really are a whole lot of wrong ways, but I prefer to consider them more specialized to the author rather than bad writing (which is why I'd make a horrible creative writing teacher or a literary critic). While some writing styles might be ... ill-advised, let's say, it doesn't mean that there is only one way to write a narration "correctly".
A few people who have read my previous work have remarked that I spend less time describing the environment of the story than other authors. I've heard nobody cite this as a complaint, but more of an observational comparison. It's true that I don't utilize as much of my word count on describing things in my story as other authors I've read. My descriptions of characters are often vague, particularly of primary characters, and my narrative often offers less of a physical description of the story's environment than one might be accustomed to. I would have to say that both of these qualities of my writing style are deliberate.
Coming, to some extent, from a filmmaking background, I am accutely aware of a story's pacing, and I am constantly concerned with a narrative dragging. Particularly in moments of high drama or action, I believe that it can really bog down a story when paragraph after paragraph are spent describing in tremendous detail in painting a word picture of events. Keeping a balance of brevity and imagery during important moments in a story is one of the great challenges of novel writing.
It's also important, I think, to notice what perspective the narrative is coming from. For my stories, it is commonly from a single protagonist's point of view, and so the narration itself should reflect that. If our hero is battling a dragon, he or she isn't necessarily going to be noticing how the creature's "blood-soaked scales are glistening in the sunlight like the sheen of a thousand polished aegis shields from a legion of soldiers marching to battle". My view would be that our hero should not be trying to figure out the most poetic metaphor for the shine on the dragon's hide - they should we worried instead about ducking its fire-breath.
In addition, it's as much for me a question of personal preference as anything. Someone mentioned that female authors tend to be more verbally descriptive, and maybe it's true (though it's hard to discount other male authors like JRR Tolkein in that respect). My own personal view as a reader is, that I've seen a sunset before - I don't need half a page of flowery descriptives to tell me what one looks like. I feel like often-times authors like to show off how poetic they can be with their writing in this way, but as a reader, I prefer to fill in the gaps with my own imagination. The real excitement for me comes from the unfolding of the story's events, and especially in the nature of the characters themselves.
Describing the characters is even more down this path for me. I draw pieces of myself in almost every character I create, but I suspect that even those closest to me don't fully comprehend what part of me I draw them from. What characters are supposed to do, in my opinion, is allow the reader to find parts of themselves to relate to them. If the reader can't relate to the character on some level, then there's no real connection between them.
Look at it this way, when you're reading a story, in your own head, what do the character's voices sound like? I know that for me, in every story I read, every character's voice, male and female, sounds like my own. If the description of their voice says that it's low and raspy, or high-pitched and nervous, or with a thick accent, it still sounds like my voice with those properties added. It's how I subconsciously connect with the characters, so that they sound like a person I can relate to on some level.
In the same vein, when I'm allowed to fill in the blanks based on some general guidelines on how a character looks, then I'm free to create an image of the character in my head that I'm comfortable with. It might be very different from any other reader's image, but that's the beauty of novels. In a movie, we're stuck with whomever the casting director thought was good for the role, whether they're right for it or not. In novels, we can custom cast every part, and build every set and location ourselves, in our own mind - if the author allows us that freedom.
Obviously, this can be taken to an extreme, as a lack of descriptions can dull our view entirely of the characters and the world. I should also add that I too like to strut my flowery pen now and again as much as the next writer. But I feel like such things are the whipped cream of the meal. A chef should add just enough garnish to offer some extra flavor, but don't go overboard, because the diner might grow sick of it.
Anyway, that's how I feel about it. I don't know how controversial such a stance would be to an established critic or professor on the subject. They might tell me that I'm wrong to suggest it, and that my writing is bad because of it. They might even be right. But an author should always write for themselves above the dictates of others, if only so that they will have at least one fan of their work.
Friday, January 22, 2010
7 Overused Fantasy Novel Conceits
A few months back, I read a very good blog about fantasy novels. It captured my interest because it was a description of seven concepts that the writer felt had become overused to the point of becoming cliches in the genre. I thought it was a very good essay, and I agreed with each of the writer's points. Unfortunatly, I've changed computers since then, and I'm unable to cite them for their work here, as I can't remember where I read it. If by chance, the writer happens upon this blog, let me know, and I will gladly reference your excellent description. In the meantime, I felt like paraphrasing it, or at least my own interpretation of it.
* Endless Sequels - There's nothing wrong with taking more than one book to tell a single story. It might take 3 or 5 or 10 or more books to create a grand canvas to describe the events of a fantasy world. The problem arises when sequels are produced for the sake of having sequels. It is wearisome when a fantasy series becomes episodic, where nothing really changes for the characters or the world from book to book. Even if things do constantly change, there isn't always a flow to it, like the story is just aimlessly meandering from one plot point to another. Naturally this gripe is strictly a matter of taste, but I feel like a fantasy series really ought to have a natural cycle to it, which means that eventually, it must end.
* Historical Equivalency - Basically, this is when there are clear and decisive parallels between fantasy elements and real life ones, such as the elves clearly representing the Greeks or the Such-and-Such Empire being analagous to the Soviet Union. It's not just races and cultures either, such as if magic draws a clear parallel to, say industrialism, or if an artifact is a clear representation of a nuclear weapon. This is not to say that fantasy story elements cannot have any kind of relevance or relation to our own world. How we paint the picture in our minds is based on our own understanding of our worlds. There is simply a danger of making the comparisons too overt, and its bluntness can dull the intended effect. The trick here is to be a little subtle when dealing with real-life analogy.
* European Medieval Times - In a related note, it seems quite common for fantasy worlds to closely resemble Medieval Bavaria, Rome or England or such. Even when they don't look like Europe in the Dark Ages, they tend to take on another Earth era's charactaristics, like Arabia or China or Japan. Again, I think this has much to do with having these pre-conceived civilizations, with their cultures and architecture as a template, allows for a basis with which to set up a foundation for a narrative. Starting completely from scratch in creating a fantasy world is a daunting prospect, but if it's vivid and truly unique, I think it can be worth the effort.
* Monarchies - Almost every fantasy civilization, good or bad, seems to be a monarchy of some sort. Furthermore, just about every story seems to require at least one prince or princess as a primary character. Perhaps this naturally comes from the fantasy novel's inherent European origins. I'm not suggesting that they should all be democratic republics, but mixing it up in regards to governmental systems can really spark some life into a story. There are oligarchies and military dictatorships as well, and even monarchies can be the dominant governing structure in a fantasy world, but there is so often a sense of politics or structural hiarchy that makes a society run in some of these stories, it can be difficult to figure out how a kingdom really operates. Also, this might be my parocheal American ideals talking, but making a character a prince or a princess doesn't elevate them in my eyes.
* The Chaotic Evil Race - The last three I particularly agree with. The first one is that there always seems to be a non-human race, commonly orcs or goblins (or the equivalent), who posess a degree of intelligence, but are bestial, vicious, and irredeemably evil. This allows our good guys to be able to fight and kill them in large numbers without ever suffering the guilt of taking a life. We have no qualms about the valiant heroes after they slaughter 50 murderous orcs at the castle gates, rather than if they were 50 human conscript soldiers sent on their mission by the evil lord. War and death can be a very messy, soul-testing ordeal for characters, even if their cause is right and their intentions pure. It's much more convienent to keep from seeing their enemy as inhuman monsters than to deal with the consequences of taking another mortal life. Honestly, there's lots of character development to be mined there, but it so rarely is utilized.
* Good vs. Evil - It is a concept that is familiar to even the youngest child, and is understandable to all, but in reality, it is almost never the case that there is a side of truly good and of truly evil. My take is that no character who is unabashedly evil is ever realistic. Real characters can do evil, but they will always convince themselves that they are actually doing good, be it self-serving good or for "the greater good" of society. I always wonder why villains want to rule the world? What purpose does it serve to be in charge of everything? Defeat your enemies certainly, acquire treasure and dominate your surroundings to be sure, but the practical act of controlling everyone and everything would simply be an endless, tedious, buerocratic nightmare. As for the good guys, they were always fine with the status quo before, but they always seem to play a reactive game against their adversaries. The heros are always responding to the actions of the villains, and never seem to be the cause of the events that move the world forward into conflict. Besides which, good guys could never really be without sin themselves. Duality is a part of human nature. There's always a little good in the worst of us, and a little evil in the best. But most everyone is somewhere in the middle.
* The Prophecy - One of my favorite quotes from one of my favorite movies is: "Nothing is written." It's a philisophical concept that is not often taken to heart in fantasy stories. Contextually, it means that there is no preset destiny, and that events are all linked in a long chain as altered by the characters and the constantly evolving situation. Yet so many fantasy stories seem to be based almost entirely on some sort of Prophecy. This Character WILL Do This, And After Much Struggle and Danger, This WILL Happen. To me, this is at best, the narrative equivalent to a spoiler. If the hero is destined to succeed all along, then why should I bother reading how he or she gets there? Is it, in that case, any more than seven books filled with busywork? Moreover, it is a spiritual concept that fate is the master of free will, and one that I think a lot of people would have trouble with if they were forced to consider it. When life, real life, is pre-scripted, what really is the point of living it? We would be just going through the motions until whatever was destined to happens happens. Obviously, in fiction stories, our defaut assumption is that the hero prevails and that good will inevidably triumph over evil. Whether we're comfortable with anything short of this is really up to the personal tastes of the reader. But the outcome is already decided before it even begins, then the journey itself loses it's meaning. When I pick up a book, I'm reading it for more than just the last chapter, and I want all of those pages between the cover to count for something.
Obviously, I resort to hyperbole at times here, saying things like "all novels" and "always" or "never". When I do, I speak for the general standard of the genre, at least from my own modest perspective. Indeed, most fantasy novels I've read will avoid some if not many of these conceits I've listed (I humbly believe that my own novel avoids them all), and I've avoided referencing anything by name, because it is of course, all a matter of personal opinoin and taste. I don't know if you would agree with all or any of these that I've listed, or if you think there are other things about the fantasy genre to add that ought to be avoided. If you do, I hope you'll let me know!
* Endless Sequels - There's nothing wrong with taking more than one book to tell a single story. It might take 3 or 5 or 10 or more books to create a grand canvas to describe the events of a fantasy world. The problem arises when sequels are produced for the sake of having sequels. It is wearisome when a fantasy series becomes episodic, where nothing really changes for the characters or the world from book to book. Even if things do constantly change, there isn't always a flow to it, like the story is just aimlessly meandering from one plot point to another. Naturally this gripe is strictly a matter of taste, but I feel like a fantasy series really ought to have a natural cycle to it, which means that eventually, it must end.
* Historical Equivalency - Basically, this is when there are clear and decisive parallels between fantasy elements and real life ones, such as the elves clearly representing the Greeks or the Such-and-Such Empire being analagous to the Soviet Union. It's not just races and cultures either, such as if magic draws a clear parallel to, say industrialism, or if an artifact is a clear representation of a nuclear weapon. This is not to say that fantasy story elements cannot have any kind of relevance or relation to our own world. How we paint the picture in our minds is based on our own understanding of our worlds. There is simply a danger of making the comparisons too overt, and its bluntness can dull the intended effect. The trick here is to be a little subtle when dealing with real-life analogy.
* European Medieval Times - In a related note, it seems quite common for fantasy worlds to closely resemble Medieval Bavaria, Rome or England or such. Even when they don't look like Europe in the Dark Ages, they tend to take on another Earth era's charactaristics, like Arabia or China or Japan. Again, I think this has much to do with having these pre-conceived civilizations, with their cultures and architecture as a template, allows for a basis with which to set up a foundation for a narrative. Starting completely from scratch in creating a fantasy world is a daunting prospect, but if it's vivid and truly unique, I think it can be worth the effort.
* Monarchies - Almost every fantasy civilization, good or bad, seems to be a monarchy of some sort. Furthermore, just about every story seems to require at least one prince or princess as a primary character. Perhaps this naturally comes from the fantasy novel's inherent European origins. I'm not suggesting that they should all be democratic republics, but mixing it up in regards to governmental systems can really spark some life into a story. There are oligarchies and military dictatorships as well, and even monarchies can be the dominant governing structure in a fantasy world, but there is so often a sense of politics or structural hiarchy that makes a society run in some of these stories, it can be difficult to figure out how a kingdom really operates. Also, this might be my parocheal American ideals talking, but making a character a prince or a princess doesn't elevate them in my eyes.
* The Chaotic Evil Race - The last three I particularly agree with. The first one is that there always seems to be a non-human race, commonly orcs or goblins (or the equivalent), who posess a degree of intelligence, but are bestial, vicious, and irredeemably evil. This allows our good guys to be able to fight and kill them in large numbers without ever suffering the guilt of taking a life. We have no qualms about the valiant heroes after they slaughter 50 murderous orcs at the castle gates, rather than if they were 50 human conscript soldiers sent on their mission by the evil lord. War and death can be a very messy, soul-testing ordeal for characters, even if their cause is right and their intentions pure. It's much more convienent to keep from seeing their enemy as inhuman monsters than to deal with the consequences of taking another mortal life. Honestly, there's lots of character development to be mined there, but it so rarely is utilized.
* Good vs. Evil - It is a concept that is familiar to even the youngest child, and is understandable to all, but in reality, it is almost never the case that there is a side of truly good and of truly evil. My take is that no character who is unabashedly evil is ever realistic. Real characters can do evil, but they will always convince themselves that they are actually doing good, be it self-serving good or for "the greater good" of society. I always wonder why villains want to rule the world? What purpose does it serve to be in charge of everything? Defeat your enemies certainly, acquire treasure and dominate your surroundings to be sure, but the practical act of controlling everyone and everything would simply be an endless, tedious, buerocratic nightmare. As for the good guys, they were always fine with the status quo before, but they always seem to play a reactive game against their adversaries. The heros are always responding to the actions of the villains, and never seem to be the cause of the events that move the world forward into conflict. Besides which, good guys could never really be without sin themselves. Duality is a part of human nature. There's always a little good in the worst of us, and a little evil in the best. But most everyone is somewhere in the middle.
* The Prophecy - One of my favorite quotes from one of my favorite movies is: "Nothing is written." It's a philisophical concept that is not often taken to heart in fantasy stories. Contextually, it means that there is no preset destiny, and that events are all linked in a long chain as altered by the characters and the constantly evolving situation. Yet so many fantasy stories seem to be based almost entirely on some sort of Prophecy. This Character WILL Do This, And After Much Struggle and Danger, This WILL Happen. To me, this is at best, the narrative equivalent to a spoiler. If the hero is destined to succeed all along, then why should I bother reading how he or she gets there? Is it, in that case, any more than seven books filled with busywork? Moreover, it is a spiritual concept that fate is the master of free will, and one that I think a lot of people would have trouble with if they were forced to consider it. When life, real life, is pre-scripted, what really is the point of living it? We would be just going through the motions until whatever was destined to happens happens. Obviously, in fiction stories, our defaut assumption is that the hero prevails and that good will inevidably triumph over evil. Whether we're comfortable with anything short of this is really up to the personal tastes of the reader. But the outcome is already decided before it even begins, then the journey itself loses it's meaning. When I pick up a book, I'm reading it for more than just the last chapter, and I want all of those pages between the cover to count for something.
Obviously, I resort to hyperbole at times here, saying things like "all novels" and "always" or "never". When I do, I speak for the general standard of the genre, at least from my own modest perspective. Indeed, most fantasy novels I've read will avoid some if not many of these conceits I've listed (I humbly believe that my own novel avoids them all), and I've avoided referencing anything by name, because it is of course, all a matter of personal opinoin and taste. I don't know if you would agree with all or any of these that I've listed, or if you think there are other things about the fantasy genre to add that ought to be avoided. If you do, I hope you'll let me know!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)