Originality is Overrated
Firefly didn’t get a high enough number of viewers to inspire FOX to keep it going, but the DVD sales numbers seem to be doing just fine.I’m about to start the third disc in the series which puts me halfway through, so I feel versed enough in the material to make some comments. The material is utter cheese, but in a very endearing way. Campy is the word I’m looking for, but keep in mind I say that as a compliment. It would be more difficult to take Firefly seriously as entertainment if Joss Whedon hadn’t infused it with campy material or humor, one-liners, etc. He offsets the humor with moments of soap opera styled dread and seriousness.As for the rest of the writing, it seems solid enough. Joss creates some strong dramatic tension between the crew of Serenity and the situations in which they find themselves. The production values of the series could have been a little higher, but I forgive all of it in understanding of budget concerns.What I get out of the series more than anything is optimism. The supportive, even fanatical fans of Firefly prove that you don’t need big budgets or even the greatest writing credentials to make the next Star Wars. Joss is very much a student of George Lucas bootstrapping and even a writer of Star Trek heritage. He even admits it in recent interviews:"There's always the young punk rebelling against his father.I'm rebelling against Han Solo, but if you are going to tell me that Han Solo isn´t the father of Malcolm Reynolds, then I am going to laugh and laugh and laugh. A lot of people liked the first STAR TREK when they were really finding their way, and James Kirk was about taking the time to take his shirt off and getting it done. Kirk was also, I would say, Malcolm's weird uncle. And both of those franchises became more and more sterile, and less kind off down and dirt. I was rebelling against that kind of TV and science-fiction. At the same time, I owe both of those franchises a huge debt. They are both in my personal, how can they not be ?It's that classic thing : I'm rebelling against my father and doing everything he doesn't do, but I think I look like him."
Creative people often focus on the notion of originality at the expense of everything else. Along with working in a vacuum, many supposed ‘creatives’ will speak of derivation as an evil thing to be avoided at all costs.I’m often both surprised and disappointed by this Originality Notion. I find Firefly very far from original. As Joss says himself, Firefly and its characters are very much the children of Star Wars and Star Trek, perhaps with a little John Wayne or Sergio Leone western spice. Being derivative is often the source of inspiration for great works.
When I learned that Red Harvest by Dashiell Hammet was the inspiration for Frank Miller's Sin City among others, I had to read it. After reading Red Harvest I was curious about whether a movie had ever been made, or if there were any plans to make a modern version. Here is what Wikipedia had to say:
"Red Harvest has only been adapted into a film one time, for the 1930 film Roadhouse Nights, starring Jimmy Durante. However, many major elements of the book were changed for the movie, including most of the characters' names, and the film is not considered a faithful adaptation.
It has been frequently asserted--though never officially corroborated--that the plot was the inspiration for Yojimbo, a 1961 film by Akira Kurosawa. Yojimbo was later remade as A Fistful of Dollars (1964), a spaghetti western directed by Sergio Leone and starring Clint Eastwood; A Fistful of Dollars was in turn remade as a 1920s-era "gangster" movie in Last Man Standing (1996), starring Bruce Willis."
So Red Harvest spawned Yojimbo and Yojimbo spawned A Fistful of Dollars. Kurosawa films have spawned a little something else as well. George Lucas modeled the first half of Star Wars (Episode 4) on Kurosawa’s Hidden Fortress.So here we have a long history of samurai movies, westerns, and fantasy-science fiction spawned off pulp fiction and detective stories. Not to mention Lucas & Spielberg's open admission that Indiana Jones was inspired by 1930s serials.
Good things happen to those who emulate.You don’t have to be entirely original to create good work or even attain a marginal level of success. Being different is more important than being original. The two are not necessarily the same thing if you think about it.If you can’t get high TV or cable ratings, or can’t be a smashing box office success, there is always the growth of DVD sales to prove you ‘financially viable’ in entertainment markets. This is an important message to writers everywhere that you don’t have to be a bestseller or smashing success to have some kind of success. Success doesn’t happen overnight. From a creative standpoint you don’t have to be entirely original either, just different enough to grab peoples' attention. There is a huge market in catering to the Children of Star Wars. If anything it proves the old adage; "If you build it, they will come."
Just ask Joss Whedon.
Narratology
Still working steadily away on my outline. I'm only on Act II at the moment, which means I may not have time to complete Act III in the outline before NaNoWriMo begins. Since I'm still suffering from this awful cold and not feeling up to my usual weekend shenanigans I may as well just work on it, no?
I pondered McGuffins yesterday, from an exploration of Wikipedia's
narratology section which is fairly robust.
An
Audience Surrogate seems especially useful for science fiction. Although I'm reading Stranger in a Strange Land right now by Robert Heinlein and I think he overuses it and makes some of the characters seem like idiots for asking stupid questions. It's mostly a matter of presentation but if a character lives in a world and is familiar with their surroundings they wouldn't ask silly questions. A good way to put it is that like any narratology device, the reader shouldn't be aware of it.
There is also the
Author Surrogate which displays the heavy handed idealism of the author. Ayn Rand and her 'mover' perfect heroes are an excellent example. I remember in The Fountainhead Howard Roark sits in his architect office, not advertising, not selling himself, simply waiting for the ideal customer to come to him because he refuses to compromise his work. Well I'm sorry but in the real world most people have to eat and provide for their families, so a guy with zero income just sitting in his place of business doing nothing waiting for the
perfect opportunity doesn't seem like much of an ideal, does it?
Let's not even discuss the 70 page 'money rant' in Atlas Shrugged. I'll merely say that it's not in the author's interest to preach to the reader, via their characters or otherwise.
On the bright side, she does portray the corruptive influence of society via '2nd handers' extremely well. Although most people do not fit entirely in the black & white, she grew up in communist Russia so I forgive her. And frightening enough, I have met a few
Jim Taggarts in my lifetime.
Then there is
Chekhov's gun. A great example of this is found in the Preacher graphic novels. Throughout the series there are early displaced single pages with frames featuring new characters or events that don't seem to be a part of the storyline... yet. They're merely teasers. I'd rather call them plot teasers than Chekhov's gun, wouldn't you?
Of course every story needs a
denouement.
I often like an
epistolary novel even though I don't have any plans to write one myself. It isn't an all-or-nothing deal, as I seem to remember Bram Stoker's Dracula featuring letters from Jonathon Harker although that wasn't the only storytelling device used.
I can hardly forget my high school literature class with all its talk of
foreshadowing. It's interesting to consider the difference between it and Chekhov's gun. Chekhov's gun is merely a reference to something which will happen later, while foreshadowing seems to often involve more symbolism or flare on the part of the writer. I could be mistaken though, and surely it's up to interpretation of the writer.
I don't like
meta references because they break the suspension of disbelief and destroy immersion.
I love the definition of
Naturalistic Science Fiction. I wouldn't not hesitate to plunk my main Quantum story and my NaNoWriMo sidestory under this umbrella.
The
Plot Coupon is an interesting concept. Upon first glance it seems just like the McGuffin, although it doesn't have to be a physical object. In the abstract it can be used as the author's 'checklist' for preparing characters or events.
"In order for event C to happen, event A and B must come about by the actions of characters X, Y, and Z." In other words, the plot coupon can be used to enforce cause & effect for the author.
As Wikipedia mentions, one of my favorite Philip K. Dick short stories, Paycheck, is founded entirely upon plot coupons. In this case they also happen to be McGuffins.
There are many other elements of narratology, go
check them out for yourself!
Sci-Fi McGuffins
The McGuffin seems to be a focal point for a lot of sci-fi. Even where it isn’t, you could view a lot of sci-fi concepts as a mcguffin in itself. Some sci-fi examples of mcguffins: Delorean in Back to the Future, sports almanac in Back to the Future II, explosive doppleganger in Imposter. For sci-fi stories it seems the mcguffin can be a person or technology. Can a mcguffin be a concept? I have a McGuffin in my sci-fi story for NaNoWriMo. It’s a McGuffin I’ve given quite a bit of thought, based in a longstanding fantasy of mine.My McGuffin is a very powerful device created by one party and being sought after by several others. It involves a bit of corporate conspiracy and espionage.One of the fun tangents is the corporate espionage involves characters and corporations from my main quantum story. It takes place before my main quantum story, so it should provide an interesting history.As for the McGuffin? It will not be featured in the main Quantum story although I may plant references to it.Do you like McGuffins? Are you using them?
Character vs. Author vs. Reader Perspective
Despite a nasty cold making a zombie out of me, I've been getting some work done on my outline for the November death march known as NaNoWriMo.
Already encountered situations where my knowledge as the author tips in favor of the characters when it shouldn't so I've had to do some pretending, feign ignorance, and put myself in the shoes of the characters and think
"What would I do?" It's a fun excercise and one that every author has to go through at some point.
It's even more important in a detective story where the plot is so strongly tied to the information the characters have.
On top of that though, you still want it to be mysterious so in many ways you have three sets of information: Character information, Author information, and Reader information.
I noticed in both Hammett's work and Chandler's that the main characters would arrive at a conclusion earlier than the reader, and thus would set about a course of action that perhaps didn't make sense to the reader at the time, but made perfect sense in hindsight.
I have mixed feelings about that. On one hand it makes the hero seem really smart for figuring out something that the reader couldn't, or wouldn't, until later. On the other hand you're cutting the reader out of the deductive process that the character is going through and being presented with a passive conclusion--a conclusion the reader had no part in figuring out for themselves.
I think it's possible to leave a few more clues or allow the reader to predict a few things on their own. This is not to say that the writer should make things obvious, but how things are made known is equally important.
Personally it breaks my immersion a bit when the main character seems to have figured out something 'magically' that I had no clue about. It raises an interesting question;
How much of the hero's actions should be a suprise to the reader?
Five Days Until Sci-Noir
I’ve been working on my outline for the Quantum sidestory based on my previously mentioned Secret Weapon. There are only five days left til the NaNoWriMo contest begins!I managed to squeeze in some of my noir detective research by blazing through Red Harvest by Dashiell Hammett and The Big Sleep by Raymond Chandler. I’m about midway through a quantum physics pop treatment called Hyperspace by Michio Kaku which isn’t providing me much inspiration because it’s mostly about the concept of parallel dimensions.Red Harvest by Dashiell Hammett – This one gave me a real taste for what noir was all about. Almost everyone in this story is corrupt or on the take, including the hero The Continental Op who often has to compromise his situation in order to make progress in the case he was hired to do. The story is aptly titled as many people die throughout the course of the tale.I’ve heard that Basin City, a.k.a. “Sin City” by Frank Miller is inspired by Personville, a.k.a. Poisonville of Red Harvest.The idea of giving town names clever nicknames or monikers is interesting to me, and something I might look into. Another nugget of appreciation is the towns are almost like characters themselves. Rather than just a backdrop for the milieu, there are signature histories or elements of the town often involving the characters. These are things I definitely want to keep in mind for my city.The Big Sleep by Raymond Chandler – I’ve read some comments to the effect that Hammett’s plotting is weak. Granted I’ve only read Red Harvest so far but at first I couldn’t really see it. After reading The Big Sleep I have a little better handle why some might think this… Red Harvest was indeed very willy nilly. The Continental Op was very much flying by the seat of his pants. This is ok for a character, as Philip Marlowe of Big Sleep very much does the same thing. But there’s a difference between a character flying by the seat of their pants because the author wants them to and on the flip side a character flying by the seat of their pants because the story itself flies by the seat of its pants. In contrast The Big Sleep is a bit more solid. There is more a rhyme and reason to everything that happens and the story unfolds in a much less hasty and more logical fashion.Where Red Harvest’s characters are more caricatures, Philip Marlowe and the cast in The Big sleep are much more coy. The way information is revealed or held back is very interesting. The interactions of the characters seem more genuine, and relationships more strained. It’s a bit difficult to pin down but there is a more realistic quality to the social tensions in The Big Sleep.All this has me thinking…What would a detective of the future be like? What tools would they use? How would computers or even things that haven’t been invented yet change the perspective of the classic noir detective?
Memorable Villains
Hank Quinlan from Touch of Evil is one of the more memorable villains I’ve ever seen in a movie. Orson Wells looks pretty different as Hank Quinlan than Citizen Kane, but he did a great job.Touch of Evil got me thinking about memorable villains. Having recently finished Red Harvest by Dashiell Hammet and Big Sleep by Raymond Chandler, I started thinking about the villains in these books.In Red Harvest you have Max ‘Whisper’ Thaler, a thug who only speaks in whispers which is certainly interesting if not memorable. In the Big Sleep there is Canino, a cold blooded hired gun who only wears brown, drives a brown coupe. Canino = Canine?Because both Hammet and Chandler had roots in serials like The Black Mask, perhaps their work is a little closer to comic books than traditional fiction. It certainly reads that way, which is a good thing in my book.Of course if you want memorable over the top just look at any James Bond film. Superhero comics are another place to look, although I’m a little tired of traditional superheroes.All this has got me thinking about my villains and how they might be memorable. Who are your favorite villains?
Creative Vacuums Don't Exist
I’m under the weather today so I’m going to keep this short.I saw the movie Domino over the weekend. It was entertaining enough—enough to solve another Quantum problem for me. There was nothing specific in the movie that tipped me off other than the Domino character being such a femme fatale. It gave me some thoughts on where to take Frank’s girlfriend.This of course got me thinking about creativity and idea synthesis as it always does. I’ve heard some people, especially musicians, talk about working within a vacuum. That is, they don’t want to listen to other peoples’ music or even hear music while they’re songwriting. I can’t be sure but I think I’ve heard the same desire for a vacuum occurs within other mediums.What I find amusing is that the creator feels they’re being original by blocking outside influences. I try to imagine what I would create in a vacuum, and the first thing that comes to mind is that the vacuum would never be ‘pure’ in any sense of the word. There’s always memories, both personal regarding my life and then there’s the memories of every book I’ve ever read, movie I’ve ever seen, or video game I’ve ever played. There is no perfect way to block past stimulus out.The more important question is why would you want to?
Delicious Writing Nuggets
Another package of research material arrived yesterday. This one had some really good nuggets: Dashiell Hammet Complete Novels, Raymond Chandler: Stories and Early Novels, Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud, Writing for Comics by Alan Moore, and of course, Firefly.I’m about midway through Red Harvest by Dashiell Hammet, and it’s really fantastic stuff. I would say even if you’re not writing a detective story, his pacing is something every writer should study. The story literally starts with a bang and doesn’t stop. There is no dead time, long pages of backstory, not a terrible amount of character’s musing or internal monologues. It’s all straightforward, solid, coherent, logical, exciting, rich storytelling. I can’t wait to read more. As an aside, the Library of America publisher has done a great job with these books. Very slickly hardbound with smooth thin pages and an attached tassel bookmark.I started watching Firefly last night. I couldn’t really understand what all the buzz was about, as it seems difficult if not impossible for Firefly fans to summarize what’s so cool about the series in a single sentence that conveys the concept accurately. After watching the pilot Serenity 1 & 2, I’m starting to grasp what’s so damn cool about it. For one, the characters are all interesting. They’re properly aligned in conflict with one another in interesting ways; Real Drama. The pacing is also excellent. Something new, dangerous, or interesting is happening literally every second of screen time. If all his writing is like this, I’m beginning to understand why Joss Whedon has a decent sized gaggle of worshippers.What’s with Understanding Comics and Writing for Comics? I don’t really intend to write one, although that’s an interesting idea. I think comics as a medium demand an attention to detail and structure that other mediums may not, with the exception of film of course. Take storyboarding and make it an official medium and you’ve got the world of comics. Because I’m interesting in script-writing along with novel-writing, comics are a very rich place to stick your literary nose.Having recently finished Preacher I must say I’m on CLOUD NINE with all this great writing. I’m starting to get many, many ideas for how I want the construction of my NaNoWriMo story to play out over the course of November.These are truly exciting times!
Flawed Characters
I’ve been working on one of my characters for the NaNoWrimo story and I was trying to think of a good character flaw to give him. I want to avoid alcoholism and normal drug use because I think those have been pretty well covered.I’ve heard about a particular side effect of sleep medications that cause memory loss if you stay awake past the point you’re supposed to go to sleep. I’ve heard stories of people ending up in unusual situations because they stayed awake too long and couldn’t remember what they did or how they got there.It seems like an interesting concept to play with, but also an addiction to sleep medication is not something I’ve heard or read much about, and so it seems like an interesting angle to attack.I’m not entirely committed to the idea at this point, which is perhaps one reason why I feel perfectly comfortable sharing it here. I’m still trying to consider all options. Hard boiled and sleep meds don’t really go together. A little voice inside me screams that I could do better than that. It’s gotten me thinking about the process of course. I had stumbled across Lee Pletzer’s blog a couple days ago where he had a post about character creation.I generally think of a character I'd like to see. It usually starts with one facet--I look for a perspective that is self-defined by the culture the character grew up or was raised in, or the perspective forced upon them by their job. Their more subtle characteristics always seem to bubble up from there. This is a bit different from say, personality. I feel every character an author creates is at least partially a reflection of themselves, and so in some manner every character will take on certain quirks or personality that reflect the writer’s muse along with a bit of their own personality. Or maybe I just take that for granted.Either way, I feel the perspective every character brings is more important than whether they like sugar and cream in their coffee, or whether or not they hate lima beans.I like to take the familiar and put a twist on it. That is the impetus behind the sleep med addiction. I’ve heard, read, and seen too much of the standard alcoholism to really appreciate it in regards to character flaws. Who needs another boozing detective, right?And so I must search high and low for something else, the 99th idea if you will. What other kinds of character flaws are interesting?Something that bears dramatic relevance to the theme of the story? Certainly food for thought…
The Long View...
Do writers think long-term? Do they delay gratification when they know it will pay off in the future? As with any question involving that little thing called humanity, it depends on the person.
Yesterday as I sketched an outline for a story I thought
"Hmm, I've written about this before." Sure enough, I dug back to around March in my Moleskine and found tons of notes already taken for this story. Whenever I have a flash of story ideas I write them down in the Moleskine. So far this has paid off time and again. I'm not able to use the ideas right away, but later on when I jot down something I've already noted, it sparks a memory and I go flipping back through the notebook.
Planting seeds early on is important even if you don't reap the fruits right away.
Reading is another example. I can't always use something from a book I'm reading right now. But the experience of reading that particular book stays in mind for as long as I remember the book itself. When I cross similar topics, or start forming some similar ideas of my own, it's easy to go back and reap the rewards of early effort.
I used to transcribe entire relevant sections of books I'd read, until I realized it was a monumental waste of time. I still take notes on everything I read, but the notes are merely summaries.
I also read a lot of books on story structure and drama before I actually started serious writing. I'm glad I was able to mold a proper framework for understanding the craft before I got too set in my ways. Adaptability is the greatest thing a person can have, or learn to have. With that in mind I'm always open to new ideas about the process of writing, and even some old ideas as well. ;)
I'm always trying to think of long-term investments I can make in the near feature that will pay dividends.
Have you made any long term investments towards your writing? What has paid back the most?
Nonlinear Writing
I created a rough outline for the Quantum side story that will be entered in the NaNoWrimo contest. Looking at the outline it struck me as it has many times before that I could simply choose any part of the story and start writing. The events and individual components of the story are strong enough that it wouldn’t even matter where I started. I could in fact start backwards, at the end of the story and work my way to the beginning, section by section. Or I could start in the middle, jump to the end, then back to the beginning. The standard division of a book into chapters makes this easily possible anyway.Do many writers work this way? How common is a nonlinear process of writing?It seems that the long tradition of novel-writing is stuck in the typewriter and longhand drafting days. Non-destructive, non-linear editing is one of the greatest benefits of the information age. Are writers truly milking it?
All Stories Mystery, All Authors Logicians
Asimov’s Caves of Steel turned was as much of a murder mystery as any mystery novel. Along with my usual structure-think, I couldn’t help but think about the importance of logic in any story. In a way, every novel is a mystery. Every novel is a game, or a puzzle. The reader slowly progresses through the puzzle, gaining new pieces as they go. If the puzzle is well written, the reader will be able to figure it out sooner rather than later, but not too soon or the plot is cliché and obvious.What I find interesting about many mystery-like stories is the author seems to have created the puzzle with the solution in mind and then worked backwards tracing the steps to the origin or ‘discovery’ of the mystery. Along the way, the author creates several false leads or directions for the characters to take. Now, I can imagine a writer doing this one of two ways; from an overview, a ‘map’ if you will of the story, creating several dead-end branches or the other way is for the author to jump into the mind of the character and form a logical, but incorrect, hypothesis.When you think about it, most stories are mysteries. The inciting incident, or as Chris Vogler would put it; the characters enter the Special World. The reader doesn’t know the how and the why from the outset, those things will be revealed over time.Then there’s the reversal. A lot of the story theory books cite ¾ into the story the heroes find they’re pursuing the wrong thing, and the real villain or explanation is revealed.This too makes ordinary storytelling more like the mystery or crime genre. If all stories are mysteries to a degree, then poor vs. strong storytelling can be measured by the strength of the author’s logic.Asimov did this very well in Caves of Steel. I enjoyed following Bailey’s deductions and his logic-checking his deductions through his partner robot R. Daneel. For me this was the perfect integration of logic into the story. The author’s logic demonstrated by the character’s logic, as checked by a character within the story who theoretically has perfect logic—the robot.This also got me thinking about story structure some more, and my mindmapping process. Really, it’s all just a game—a game of connections. Connect the Dots, only the dots are events or plot points. The only ‘rule’ about how they are connected is a matter of logic. Does it make sense? Would the character do that? If this event could happen, what are the most realistic causes of the event?This leads to research, which in turn leads to strengthening of the events and their causes, binding the logic even tighter like a thread pulled taut on both ends.Authors as Logic-Weavers. Hmm…
Fodder for Synthesis
What I got out of things recently consumed...Schrödinger's Kittens by John GribbinI apologize in advance for any butchering here. There are some truly bizarre theories in quantum physics. One of the more interesting ones involves an explanation of quantum entanglement. Two particles connected over space and time, but how? There is no evidence of any communication going on, and this is one of the greatest mysteries of the field.One theory postulates a ‘handshake’ across both space and time, possibly backwards in time for each particle, which, in effect, cancels out the evidence of communication.Instead of communicating across distance NOW, the particles are intertwined at their origin, which means any information about speed, location, values, and rotation is instantaneously transmitted back in time to the origin point, erasing any evidence of it.This is pretty far out, and a bit difficult to wrap your head around. Keep in mind; it’s just a theory, but an interesting one.Caves of Steel by AsimovEarth societies live in giant steel caves. This frightened me a bit at first, because it’s similar to an idea I was exploring in my own works but the more I read I began to see marked differences between the caves of steel and my, uh, structures.Bailey is very rational for a human, capable of great leaps of logic. This is one reason the spacers chose him to solve a murder on their turf. The dialogue and logical interplay between a human with strong understanding of logic, and the robot R. Daneel whose logic is perfect makes for an interesting dynamic.Preacher graphic novels (1-9)There’s a reason I’m not much of a comic fan. I’m not all that fond of superheroes with magical powers.Garth Ennis has a lot of guts, setting Preacher within the Christian mythology. The series is extremely violent, blasphemous, heretical, and I thought that any Christian would probably be greatly offended by it. But if you read reviews online, surprisingly, there are many Christians who appreciated the series despite some of its more heretical content.But let’s get to the meat of the matter…The writing is just plain solid. Garth Ennis shows himself to be a very strong storyteller within the Preacher series. After reading the very first issue, my interest was piqued. By the third book, I couldn’t put it down. I was more engaged in Preacher than I’ve been in any fiction novel for a long time.Preacher has great plotting, excellent twists and surprises. One thing I took special note of was little seeds planted in the story as to what would happen later. It wasn’t foreshadowing in the classic literal sense, but more illustrative foreshadowing. For example, you turn a page to find a completely new series of panels depicting people, things, or places you haven’t seen before. All you get is that one page to make sense of, which leaves you wondering. Of course, by the end of each book that ‘teaser’ is fully explained.The series keeps you on your toes, and is well constructed. I dare say it’s an excellent example for any aspiring novelist as any well-written novel. The structure and pacing is simply superb.All of these are having an interesting effect on the way I view my own work. I’d like to go through the Preacher series again and examine the story structure a little more closely. I think this one is going to have a pretty long-lasting effect on me.
Fiction Writing is Communication
Since I killed two of the three sci-fi ideas I had crammed into my story, I’ve discovered something interesting; the dramatic tension between my characters increased.The other sci-fi ideas were serving a convoluted explanation for why certain characters were tied to one another, and what their relationships were. It was a bit of a muddled, confused mess.Paring it down to a single core idea to focus on has also resulted in greater clarity of the drama and interaction between characters. So not only have the themes in Frank’s story in Quantum become more pure, but the story will be easier to (re)write as well.This only reinforces my belief that the core ideas have to be nailed down before you start writing. As for following the muse and letting creative thoughts and ideas evolve on the page? There is plenty of room for that in the finer details.It could just be my own subjective preference of working style, but I don’t like leaving the major plot points up to whim or chance. I don’t see writing as a whimsical process, like you’d jam out some tunes with a band.Melly over at All Kinds of Writing hit upon this debate with a post about the definition of art. My two cents in the comments, which I’ll repeat here, are this:- Intention
- Story or communication
What is the intention of the creator? A person blindly following the muse doesn’t have an intention. Or you could say their intention is to follow their muse. While this is a perfectly valid personal goal, it’s entirely internal—speaking to an audience of one; the self. And that leads to…Communication. As a creator, what are you trying to say? What is your thesis? What is your point? If your story has a central subject, topic, thesis, or theme, what is it? If you don’t have one, then you’re not really saying anything. Your story is just a bunch of self-gratifying babble.Some think that self-gratification is a perfect stand alone reason to create anything. If satisfying only yourself is goal, then I have no choice but to agree. And I do agree. A large part of my urge to create is self-gratification. But that leaves one last question;Why publish?
99 Ideas
REJECT THE FIRST!My first ideas are usually my worst. It’s that little thing called the path of least resistance. When trying to do or create something, the first idea that pops into mind for me is the most obvious, clichéd, ridiculous piece of garbage. So is usually the second thought, and the third.My best ideas usually come after a long time struggling with some problem, and reading, researching, coping, dealing… and a great deal of frustration. And then after I’ve gorged myself on a delicacy of related material, suddenly an idea pops into mind. I call this The Last Idea. When I get the Last Idea, it truly is the last. I’ve worked hard enough, rejected enough silly and lazy thoughts that the last one truly pulls its weight, or is worth its weight.I criticize the work of others a lot, sometimes too much. Usually what drives and motivates me to critique is the feeling that the creator did something that *I* tend to do from time to time—a thing I do, or habit I have which annoys me.Yes, I’m a hypocrite.I know my worst ideas are the first that pop into mind. Therefore, I think it’s a safe assumption that a lot of people create based on their first ideas because it’s easy, because it feels natural.This is one area where I don’t trust my muse at all. Your muse can lead you inspiring places. But your muse can also lead you down dead end paths. Sometimes your muse will tell you to run with the first idea.The rigors of research and true creative synthesis aren’t easy, nor do they feel very natural. You slog away through books, magazines, movies, comics, or other media to sometimes feel like you’re merely wasting your time. You’re not wasting your time.Out of 99 ideas the crap is at the front, number one. 99 is golden. Reject the first idea!
Creative Clutter
Putting everything and the kitchen sink into your story…When I started Quantum in 2002 I didn't know structure or literary theory. I was also desperate for cool ideas. I wanted more than just cool ideas though. I wanted really wild, outrageous hooks that would make the story and universe rich. And so I latched onto a few haphazard ideas that sounded pretty cool at the time. And then I latched onto a few more…...
until I had an avalanche of yesterday’s garbage pouring out of the closet.Clutter.Creative Clutter is hard to get around in writing because the writer just wants to keep adding value to their story, so they add things here and there, throw more ideas into the mix. Is there such a thing as too many ideas? I think so. In the primary quantum story, featuring our hero ‘Frank’ if you remember, involved three entirely different sci-fi concepts that were directly associated with Frank’s identity.It’s not that these concepts weren’t interesting enough—they certainly were. The problem is in looking at Frank, these three concepts, and the story as a whole I couldn’t help but ask myself “What IS this story about?”So I made the decision to cut out two of the three less interesting concepts and I’m now left with one really solid core concept to focus on.Some writers probably address these issues in the second draft, but this is where I think drafting falls short. What happens if you get done with your first draft and the first thing upon looking back is… “What is this story about?”It’s not just a process of editing. Some things, like core concepts, you just can’t edit out after-the-fact. Editing them out would not only create a serious loss of context, but killing a core idea changes your entire story. You might as well start again from the beginning and rewrite.This is why I "circle like a vulture” and “find the things that make the story really resonate” to paraphrase Joss Whedon.I wonder about those drafters out there. And I wonder if a lot of stories don’t have a clear focus because one or five too many of their ideas made it into the second draft, and the third, and the fourth.I’ve got the primary story of Quantum down to a single core idea. I no longer have to worry about tying disparate ideas together through a convoluted plot.Sometimes it pays to kill your ideas.
Character Arcs
Hard vs. Soft TraitsI was talking to a buddy about why Firefly is so cool, since I’m silly and haven’t seen it yet. He said it has to do with the characters being real, and evolving over time. That got me thinking about the marketing aspect of character creation, because ideally a well-marketed character has certain traits, qualities, or features that never change. It’s what makes them unique and memorable. It’s their identity.So what you have is hard and soft traits. The hard traits are the things that never change the person’s core personality. The things you couldn’t beat out of them with a baseball bat if you tried. The soft traits are more like software—they can be rewritten. The soft traits can change over time, as the person evolves with their experiences. This allows for a true character arc over the course of the story while retaining the hook, the identity of the character.This is true in my own life as well. Some things never change. I’m a stubborn determined bastard for one. If somebody tells me something can’t be done, or if I commit myself to doing something, I’m going to do it even if I die trying.Yet over the years I’ve softened in some areas, shed some ignorance, changed my attitude regarding certain things, and learned a whole hell of a lot.These are the things that make characters real to me. Not cardboard cutouts that never change, but people who learn things over time and evolve with their experiences. And yet, some things will always stay the same. It is that dynamic which creates character.
Fantasy vs. Sci-fi
When I was in my early teens I loved to read fantasy novels. I enjoyed Tolkien and some of the TSR series such as DragonLance and Forgotten Realms.
In my adult years, I have a harder time getting into fantasy. I prefer sci-fi now. One big reason is style. I’m tired of elves, orcs, goblins, halfings (hobbits), and yes… dragons. I’m tired of medieval style. On a deeper level, I don’t like the wildcard known as magic. Conceptually, for a writer or any other creator it’s a free meal ticket. Want to do something illogical? “It’s magic!”Sci-fi writers, if on the harder edge of reality, need to work a little harder to justify and explain their concepts. I'm a little biased though. ;-)Then you have properties like Star Wars which straddle the line between sci-fi and fantasy. When you think about it, Star Wars is a bit closer to fantasy than it is sci-fi. I’m inclined to think of sci-fi featuring deep explanation of alien cultures to be near-fantasy as well. It’s just so far beyond the familiar as to be literally fantastical.In Food for Sci-Fi I lamented the lack of ‘Reality Sci-Fi’, and I believe part of that lack is due to a lot of sci-fi being weighted towards fantasy.
If you were to picture the range on a scale it’d look something like this, although this is horribly simplistic… and a hastily made graphic to boot.The point is, which kind of fiction do you prefer along this scale? When I was thirteen, the far left would have won. These days it’s the hard right. I still can enjoy fantasy it’s just not what I seek out.What’s your preference?
NaNoWrimo Insanity
I did something crazy and signed up for the NaNoWrimo.org contest. Why crazy? Here’s the deal; The contest is to write a 50,000 word novel in 30 days. Crazy especially for me because that’s simply not how I work. I don’t draft in the typical way--hashing out a 50,000 word novel in one month is just not my style.That’s exactly why I signed up for it.There’s something interesting about the challenge; To see if I actually can do it. More importantly, I’m curious to find out what will happen if I’m forced to work by a method that’s the anti-thesis of my own. Hey, I might learn something.The contest does present me with some logistical problems. For one, Quantum is not the project I want to subject to this brutal contest. I’m also reluctant to stop working on Quantum for a month just to go off on some contest adventure. So my solution is to use one of my side-stories planned for the quantum universe. I will work on details of the Quantum universe through the contest without blowing the whole shebang on my pride N’ joy.Because I’m not fond of the creative masturbation that is the normal drafting process, I will be using my secret weapon in order to keep my muse under control.Ok, so it’s not really a secret weapon. It’s a bit of David Siegel’s Nine Act structure hammered into the traditional three-act format. It’s also combining a bit of the twelve stages from Writer’s Journey by Chris Vogler. As you can see I’ve taken the stuff I like the best of a variety of methods, and smashed them into an abstracted three act structure.You’ll also notice I’ve created this template as a mindmap using a trial version of Mind Manager. This is essentially how I work, creating notes within the mind map and even prose or dialogue. This is just a web exported version, so you don’t get to see the beauty of mindmap functionality, such as the placing and arranging of nodes or ‘topics’ as they are called in MindManager lingo.Come November and the insanity of the NaNoWrimo contest, this should help keep my little side-foray under control.When I’m done, I will return to direct work on Quantum using some of the details and ideas gained from my work on the contest.NaNoWrimo seems like a fun exercise not only in writing but as a community. Go check NaNoWrimo out, and let me know if any of you are coming along for the ride!
Long Term Writing Habits
After searching around for other writers’ blogs, I stumbled upon author S. L. Viehl’s PaperBack Writer, where I found a post called Writing & Selling I. Veihl has an interesting list of things to help other writers. I’ll just comment on the ones I found most interesting:“3. Boost your time efficiency by doing things like parallel researching (using the same research you put together for one novel in a different way for another book.)”This is interesting. I already do this, but I hadn’t really thought about it as ‘parallel research.’ I’m slogging through 5 books on quantum physics right now, and you’d better believe that I’m going to squeeze whatever extra mileage I can out of them, for multiple stories.“4. Work on more than one book at once.”I do this a little, as my universe features many characters that have overlapping stories. It’s unavoidable--necessary in many ways…It also fills my desire to create by aggregation. Grow your characters and universe. Don’t just hash them out on the page and let them suffer from slow decay. But then I’m not a fan of one-offs.“5. Read widely all the time; don't focus on one genre.” Amen. Good advice for anyone, not just writers. In between my pet goal of reading Philip K. Dick’s entire pulpy body of work (I’m sick I know), been reading A.E. Van Vogt and Asimov. To break out of sci-fi though, I started reading some graphic novels—namely, Preacher which is excellent. Soon I’m going to dig into some hardboiled detective stuff from the 40s and 50s. I’ll be starting with Raymond Chandler and Dashiell Hammet per the recommendations of some of you. :-)There’s plenty of non-fiction as well. Aside from the quantum physics foray I have a few books on doomsday scenarios. Not truly end of the world, but things that would make our lives difficult. And no, they aren’t the subjects being made into movies recently. I’m more interested in realistic or even probable events in the next few hundred years. Hell the weather beats us down enough—just look at Katrina. What about certain permanent degradations of our environment?Upon reading the last couple paragraphs you can piece together your own ideas about Quantum. I also burn through a business, management, marketing, or economics book between all the fun. Then of course there is my 8-DVD Netflix package. Let’s not forget computer games either.No my friends, there are plenty of sources for inspiration, fodder for synthesis, and all around brain food!!!Delicious.666. Take NotesOh wait. That’s my list item. I carry a Moleskine 3x5 durable hardbound notebook, because you just never know when something will hit you.667. Visualize your writing project. Use mind-mapping software like Freemind, Mind Manager, or Personal Brain. When you can see the structure of your story and how everything comes together… well, that’s something that brings a tear to my eye. It’s beautiful.Use whatever you can. Find anything you can get your stinky grubbin’ little writer’s fingers on.
Connecting Story Dots
One of the most difficult areas in working on my story is connecting the dots between different characters and separate ideas that are supposed to be joined. For example, I have my sci-fi tech concepts which are all working just fine, but I wanted to tie them into the hero’s cultural background and mythology. The problem is his culture is not very advanced technologically; in fact it’s almost the anti-thesis of that. So one solution would be to take natural advantage of that anti-thesis and pit the hero’s technology against his cultures’ lack of technology.
In other words, he would have trouble getting along in his culture because his technology makes him so different. This would make for some nice drama, and I’ve already decided to pursue this route, at least to an extent.
However, I wanted to do more. I wanted to tie into this culture’s ancient mythology. Yet, ancient mythology and high technology don’t mix very well. Or most of the ways I picture them mixing are very cheesey and bad.
Of course, I could always do the obligatory “dream sequence” and yes, there could be a rightful explanation for dreams via the technology, but being the trite and obvious choice I’m inclined to reject it. Maybe I’m too critical about my own ideas, but I’ve got a good gut when it comes to direction I want to take and when I sense cliché, I’m inclined to smack myself upside the head.
The hero’s cultural background ties in with the villain’s motivations, but only in a very evil mastermind plot kind of way. In reality though, people don’t often ‘plan’ these things. They just hold a set of beliefs and as they rise in power, their beliefs become law and things go out of control. While my villain certainly has that ‘evolution of bad belief’ going on, it’s still not strong enough to tie ancient mythology into sci-fi technology.
Because connecting the dots between two separate elements is usually solved by creative synthesis, and is really the core of the creative act, I have a feeling there will be a breakthrough on this soon as I keep hammering away at it.
Food for Sci-Fi
Sci-Fi of the 1940s, 50s, and 60s via the works of Alfred Bester, A.E. Van Vogt, and Philip K. Dick featured a lot of telepaths and androids. Asimov as well, with his 'robot series' of work for which he is well known.
What was lacking in the early years was a strong foundation in real science as the basis for concepts and stories. I don't mean labcoat descriptions of how everything works--everybody knows that doesn't make for great entertainment. The concepts are not really grounded in reality though. What is scientific about telepathy?
Alfred Bester's Demolished Man features a whole society of telepaths. So does A.E. Van Vogt's novel Slan, of which the title is derived from the race of telepaths at the center of the story. Philip K. Dick's UBIK features them as well, and probably a few other stories of his I can't think of at the moment.
Aside from androids, telepaths, and maybe rocketships there wasn't a lot of new technology being featured in these stories. Nor was there a realistic assessment of how that technology might affect our society.
Fast forward to the present day, and survey the landscape of sci-fi. Where it isn't cyberpunk, a great deal of it is space opera. In the last month I've surveyed dozens and dozens of books from various authors published in the last 20 years. What do you find?
Intergalactic space travel. Wormholes. Alien civilizations. Star Trek type stuff. "To Boldy go..."
My only question is, where is the in-between? There are some exciting developments happening right now that will affect humanity in the next 100-200 years. Yet, few are writing about it.
Everything from quantum mechanics to A.I. and computation to nano carbon tubules that create substances stronger than anything humans have ever created. The implications for these fields are profound, as is their impact on our society. But why isn't anyone writing about them?
As for A.I., of course there is everything from the film sharing the same title, back to Terminator, all the way back to 2001: A Space Odyssy. Of these, HAL 9000 from 2001 is probably the most realistic portrayal of "first A.I. sentience" although filled with heavy paranoia.
In reality, A.I.'s could become sentient in 20 years or so, if you believe the predictions of futurists like Ray Kurzweil. Yet, the reality I imagine is different from the outrageous postulations of most sci-fi.
I picture a computer, just like any other, loaded with all the code for the A.I. and when it's turned on it just begins seeking input. Perhaps crawling the web and parsing information. While some imagine A.I. will see us as a threat and plan to kill us, there are other more interesting questions in my mind.
How would an A.I. perceive humans? Surely it would be dependent on us, but why does that make us a threat? If it does, why would a computer want something like 'independence.'
This also leaves out the fact that much of human behavior is dictated by our biological drives--of which the computer would have none. It might be able to understand our biological drives by studying or parsing information about them. But would it 'care' about the same things we do? I suspect it wouldn't.
The reality of A.I. would probably be much different from the way we could imagine it, if we can imagine it at all. But where are these alternate perspectives in fiction? And it doesn't stop at A.I.
I have my doubts that we will be colonizing the galaxy in the next 100, 200, or even 300-400 years. We simply don't have the technology and resources and the economy of scale to do it yet. It's way too expensive, and there are tremendous logistical problems we need to overcome before something like Star Trek becomes the reality.
A more interesting question to me is; What will happen here on Earth in the next 200 years? Or even the next 100? What is the most likely and realistic set of scientific predictions that could be made?
There is a massive breeding ground for a 'Reality Sci-Fi' or a sci-realism form of fiction. A reality where the discoveries in quantum physics, computation, and new material synthesis and manufacturing play a much bigger role than crazy robots or telepaths reading our every thought.
Somewhere between wacky robots, telepaths, and galactic colonization, there is a much more immediate and relevant sci-fi waiting to be presented. Quantum? :)
Story Marketing
"The year was 2345. Mankind had solved all problems... or so they thought. Until a great evil arose and threatened the fate of the universe! Only one man could stop it!"
Why are stories presented in this way? "Only one man could save the world!" is rather obvious isn't it? Of course there's a hero. Of course there's a bad guy. If it's action or adventure of any kind, there will be a hero and a villain in most cases.
It would be silly to call the existence of a hero and a villain in stories 'unoriginal'. It's part of the form. Get over it.
My problem has more to do with presentation. Why present the obvious?
There's no better example than film trailers. Some of them are great, some of them actually cause people to avoid a movie. The better trailers grab your attention with something interesting, lure you in with a bread-crumb trail of high details, and then they cut you off with some kind of mystery. They leave you thinking "What's going to happen!?" or "I definitely need to see that to find out what happens."
Why can't that kind of attention-draw be applied to any description of the story? Take for example, the blurb on the back of a paperback novel. If I read another meaningless description of something all stories have, I'm going to kill somebody in marketing.
It goes deeper though. I think one of the reason story blurbs use only the most generic elements that all stories have is that they don't have anything unique about the characters or world to sell. Instead of "Only one man could save the planet!" put a twist on it. Why is that one man interesting? Tell me. Please.
Again, it comes down to giving the audience a new perspective, and that can't be done if the creators don't have a handle on unique perspective themselves.
I already have this mapped out for Quantum. It's out of a passion for the unique perspective of the themes and story itself. Hopefully people will be able to tell from the blurb alone that I had a lot of fun with the creative process. To me that's what is missing from a lot of story blurbs. It's a shallow hard sell without any indication that the creator has any passion for what they created.
That could be the fault of some marketing department, or it could be the fault of the creator. I tend to blame the creator because marking departments often only work with what you give them. Either way, it's something I value and wouldn't give it up to the banality of somebody who doesn't care about my story and is just "doing their job."
Passion and perspective are dually important in how you present the pitch of your story. Oh, and marketing begins at the beginning, not the end.
Character Web
It's really difficult to incorporate minor characters into your story that will be featured as spinoff characters who will be the heroes in their own stories.
The reason it's difficult is because while you develop one story, you're in some ways developing the other. Multiple threads.
Managing these multiple threads is like writing two stories at once. I can perfectly understand why some would avoid this method like the plague. They just want to write one story, and have it clear, and easy. They just write the damn thing.
My problem is an obsession. It's not just "the damn thing"--for me it's so much more. I'm creating a universe with many characters. Each story has one hero and a supporting cast. But the supporting roles for each story are heroes of their own stories.
I'm weaving a web. Weaving multiple narratives at the same time is hard. But it's worth it. When I'm done the universe will be more rich and cohesive by having intertwined threads than if I didn't and just made a "throw-away" story where none of the characters are important outside their stories and everything can be tossed in the garbage after you're done with it.
This is one of my problems with Hollywood... where are the characters I can follow virtually forever? James Bond is the only timeless one I can think of... although Lucas has achieved something close to that with Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader.
Tolkien achieved it to a degree as well.
I firmly believe the only way to create great properties like Star Wars, or Lord of the Rings is to have multiple threads and characters woven together across space and time. You inevitably end up with a more rich and juicy story, with the downside being it's a longer and harder slog to actually finish.
Politics in Fiction...
How do you present politics in fiction?
How do you present them as background information in the story without slowing the story down?
The problem is speeches are bad in fiction. I don't think people want to listen to that stuff. So how do you make it interesting?
One way is under-the-breath commentary. You know, a character is shuffling along half-listening to the garbage spewing out the politician's mouth, and coming up with an opposite, cynical response to everything the politician says.
There's also plenty of background ambience, like TVs or broadcasts that can display different political elements throughout the story. Those devices are very passive though. They don't firebrand a lot of the themes in the story.
I may have to construct Frank's commentary on top of some of the political elements. Something interesting, elements that are violently opposed to one another, with a little bit of humor.
Juxtaposition. Counterpoint.
Perhaps juxtapositi