Yesterday I say down and I wrote for an hour and I sucked.
It happens.
It may have been because it was getting late and I was tired, or I hadn't eaten dinner yet and I was hungry. It could be that I've recently lost a friend and didn't feel so creative. It could be I'd spent a little too long playing a video game and my mind had gone numb, all my creativity dried and turned to dust.
What may have caused an evening of some terrible writing doesn't matter. Fact is, I wrote some absolutely awful prose. I was productive, but in the same way food poisoning makes you productive. You're welcome for that thought.
So I finished an hour of writing and said, "I'm going to put a hold on this for now."
I'll try again tonight. I might still be in poor form. I might write some more crap. Depending on how the day goes, I might write crap for two hours, or three.
In the end it doesn't matter. It doesn't bother me even a little.
Normally I like to flatter myself and say I'm a decent author. I write some good stuff, some exciting stuff, some engaging stuff. Mostly I like to say I write something worth reading.
And often, I don't. Days like yesterday happen. No big deal.
I'm going to say something that's pretty standard writer's advice. This maxim gets shared around plenty and, unlike many writer's maxims, I tend to agree with this one.
Give yourself permission to suck.
It's going to happen. It's probably going to happen more often than not. A lot of the time, it's going to happen when you don't even realise it. You'll write something and you'll be very happy with it and later you'll come back to edit it and you'll say, "What happened? This was good when I wrote it! Those damn Suck Goblins snuck into my house again and ruined all my work!" But the Suck Goblins aren't real. I know they're not because I just made them up. Literally, I made them up just now. So you can't blame the Suck Goblins. That bad writing is all you. Bad prose, bad dialogue, bad plot, bad metaphors, all of it is on you.
And that's just fine. It happens. Nobody writes a perfect first draft. Nobody writes a perfect second draft. Third draft? Nope. Fourth? Fifth? I highly doubt it. Personally, I usually take six or seven drafts to get something right. Every draft up to that point is full of suck.
I plan to go into detail on editing in the near future so I won't dwell on this idea for long but let me say this: Good writing happens in pieces, in stages, over time. Drafts one to five aren't terrible and then draft six is all strawberries and cream. Each stage sands off the edges and polishes the surfaces until you've got it right.
What are the caveats, you ask? Good. You're learning. There's always fine print, always some extra detail these maxims demand. Sadly, they don't get shared as often as the maxim itself - because writers just love a snappy little truism. But this is why you come to me, right? We don't play around, here. We get down to the hard nosed truth.
All right. So, give yourself permission to suck.
But don't. Don't ever let yourself get the idea that writing something crap is okay. It's not. We're not put upon this earth to write bad stories with bad prose. We're here to produce quality. So when you notice yourself writing something that makes babies cry for all the wrong reasons, just make a little note of it to yourself and keep going. You'll come back later and fix it up. All this bad writing here is an error that must be fixed like a typo. It's a typo that the government gave psychic powers to and now its powers are out of control and its body is mutating into this giant fleshy baby looking monstrosity and it's shouting "KANEDA!!!" and you're shouting "TETSUO!!!" and half your audience is scratching their heads at this point, wondering just how we got to this point. The take-away from this is that you don't want to write badly, and when you do, remind yourself that it is bad and that you'll fix it up later.
Don't get comfortable with bad writing.
This is all about acceptance of the inevitable and giving our self the space to keep going. Bad writing mustn't become a stumbling block. It's a part of life that we acknowledge, and then we keep writing and we finish what we're doing and we get to the end of the draft and then we start again and we polish the surfaces and we sand the edges and bit by bit we remove all that sucky writing we did. But in the mean time, you have permission to suck.
Fortunately for us, that's the long and the short of the fine print on this one. It needs to be said, but it's said briefly. Maxims are great and that's why we love to share them around and make them into memes and say "Hey there, creative buddy of mine, just remember that when the tough gets going, it's okay to suck." Or something like that. But we must always look deeper and unpack pithy phrases like these to make sure we really understand them.
If we don't, we may get the wrong idea and when somebody says "Hey, this thing you wrote is kind of craptastic. You're usually better than that," we go and turn into a giant raging were-honey-badger and scream "I GAVE MYSELF PERMISSION TO SUCK AND THAT'S WHAT I DID AND YOU CAN'T TELL ME I'M WRONG I DO ALL THE THINGS THOSE FUNNY GREETING CARDS SAY TO DO AND I AM BEST WRITER EVER NOW I EAT YOUR FACE."
And nobody wants to be that guy.
Sunday, August 23, 2015
Wednesday, August 19, 2015
Things I Find Mildly Annoying
For your entertainment, here's a short list of unimportant things that bother me.
List done! Enjoy the rest of your day, Also, I made a new Soap Box. If you like that kind of thing, go have a look.
People who say Christine and The Phantom should have gotten together at the end of The Phantom of The Opera
I get it. The Phantom is oh so handsome (with his mask on) and the way he broods is almost as appealing as the way he sings if you're into the dark and mysterious stalker/murderer type. And Raoul is douche bag, too, so seeing him get the girl is unsatisfying. But, seriously, the Phantom is a bad dude. You know he would have been abusive. How about an ending where Christine don't need no man?
Discussions about George Lucas' films
These just get me in trouble. Many of my friends are giant nerds and, being giant nerds, they have strong opinions on the prequel Star Wars and the fourth Indiana Jones film. I, being a giant nerd, also have opinions on them. My opinion is usually different to theirs. At this point, I'm just a little tired of being told why I'm wrong.
People who dismiss arguments or opinions for stupid reasons
If I ruled the world, everybody would be issued with debate licences. You don't have to do anything to earn it, it's your right from birth. But you can lose it if you break the debate laws that also exist when I rule the world. One of those laws is using statements like "You only say that because you're too young to know better," or, "I guess you need to have children to understand," or, "I went to university and you didn't, so obviously I'm right," or any similar dismissive bullshit like that. I mean the fact that it's incredibly rude should be reason enough not to do it, right?
The phrase "You didn't like that movie because you just don't get it."
Basically the same as above but this one annoys me so much it gets its own entry. How about when we have conversations with people, we begin from a point of not being a condescending asshat?
This thing my friend does where he cracks the bones in his neck
It's just weird!Zack Snyder
'Nuff said.Stanley Kubrick
At this point, my hatred of Kubrick's library of work is well documented.People playing with their phones, their computers, or their portable game consoles at the RPG table
The Nintendo DS and the PSP are bad enough, but I once played in a Dungeons and Dragons game where a guy brought his entire desktop computer - tower, monitor, gaming keyboud and mouse, headphones - and sat there playing a video game until his turn in combat. Of course once it got to his turn, he would then ask for a recap of what happened while he wasn't playing attention! This isn't game-ception, guy, there's no need to game while you game. It's irritating and it's rude and you should feel bad!
News media that isn't The Guardian
At this point, there's hardly any integrity or standards left in journalism and The Guardian is one of the few news sources that seems to give me what I want from them: The news. The hilarious satire of First Dog on The Moon is a bonus.Excessively negative people
People who are excessively negative and like to focus on things they don't like instead of things they do? Screw those guys. We don't need that kind of attitude around here. The only thing that bothers me more than them is obvious irony. It's like, yeah, we all see the irony,try to aim a little higher next time, pal.List done! Enjoy the rest of your day, Also, I made a new Soap Box. If you like that kind of thing, go have a look.
Friday, July 24, 2015
Television's Big Lie
A few years back I was watching this TV show called 'Californication'. You may have heard of it. It chronicled the adventures of an American author played by David Duchovny. Decent TV show. I made it few two or three seasons before I stopped watching. Nothing on the show, I just rarely make it to the end of TV series.
The way 'Californication' presented the writing process is fairly similar to how many movies and TV shows present the writing process. Here's how it works.
1. The writer struggles. Writers can't just come up with an idea or a story or a topic, sit down and write it. They can't just set aside time in their day to brain storm and plan. Or rather, they could, but it always ends up being fruitless and they have a montage of making pencil towers and throwing scrunched up paper into their waste bin. Writing can't just happen.
2. Inspiration strikes. Somehow, some way, somewhere, the writer is inspired. Often it's because of something they see or somebody might say something that makes all the pieces of their potential novel fall into place. More often, however, they experience something amazing and unusual and it becomes the catalyst for their story. Whatever the case, inspiration comes and at last they can write.
3. The writer writes. They sit down at their typewriter (or computer, but often a typewriter because writers are quirky like that or because it's a Stephen King story from the 1970s) and they punch out a story. This also often involves a montage or similar time lapse but the suggestion is that the writer simply does nothing else but write from when the time inspiration hits until the time that first draft is done?
4. Did I say first draft? Oops! That's not how it works. Because inspiration is so strong that you only need to write a book once. You get those last words down and BAM! Your work is done. Time to send it to your agent or maybe straight to the editor working at the publishing house. This person may also be your best friend and wing man when you go out drinking. Having a purely professional relationship with your professional colleague would just be weird. They love it to. Best thing you ever wrote! Sold! Print it!
5. Six months later, the book is on shelves. Everybody is buying it. It's 10/10 and you're doing interviews for Time Magazine. Fame, money, prestige and acclaim are all yours! Midlist? Obscurity? What's that? You, sir, are a genius!
Obviously it's fiction. Nobody believes this is what it's like. Nobody wants a montage for the author's third draft, most of which he does while watching repeats of Bewitched in his pyjamas. There's no value or charm in an episode where the author browses BabyNames.com in search of a good name for a throw away character. And seeing the hero's hard work reap little to no reward, unless that's the key conflict to the story, isn't much fun to watch.
So whatever. It's fiction. Who gets upset about fiction? We all know it's not true. Writing's not like that and anybody with half a brain gets that.
But there's an idea in here I think does need some proper refuting,and that's the idea that authors work alone. Writers write the book, send it away and go onto the next book. The author jealously guards his manuscript, crafting it his art like a lone wolf. He is the keeper of the magic.
But that's not how it works. Books are made by teams and if that's an idea you need to get friendly with or you're in trouble. You, the writer, are not enough. At least, at the absolute very least, you need an editor.
And by editor, I mean an editor. Not you with an editor's hat on, not your friend who knows grammar really well. You want to make a professional book? Get a professional editor.
But books aren't made by writers and editors either. You're writing a book for people to read, yeah? So get some people to read it. Find some readers. Obviously they should be people who read lots of books. They'll have the best knowledge, intuitive or otherwise, of what works. They'll also probably get through the manuscript. Other writers are good, presuming they're writers who read books. But what's really important is that they're somebody willing to give you an honest opinion, not just of the manuscript as a whole, but as a play by play commentary, picking over each scene and telling you what they really think. Some people suggest this shouldn't be your mother or your spouse or your friends. But they can be, so long as they're willing to give you honest feedback.
We're not quite done though. Because books are made by writers and editors and test readers, but they're also made by your friends and your family, by people you brainstorm with and who suggest ideas, by their encouragement and their interest in your creative endeavors.
What it all comes down to is you are one person with one mind and one imagination. There's not enough in you to make a good book all by yourself. It takes a team, one bigger than you may have thought. Like the man said...
It's dangerous to go alone.
The way 'Californication' presented the writing process is fairly similar to how many movies and TV shows present the writing process. Here's how it works.
1. The writer struggles. Writers can't just come up with an idea or a story or a topic, sit down and write it. They can't just set aside time in their day to brain storm and plan. Or rather, they could, but it always ends up being fruitless and they have a montage of making pencil towers and throwing scrunched up paper into their waste bin. Writing can't just happen.
2. Inspiration strikes. Somehow, some way, somewhere, the writer is inspired. Often it's because of something they see or somebody might say something that makes all the pieces of their potential novel fall into place. More often, however, they experience something amazing and unusual and it becomes the catalyst for their story. Whatever the case, inspiration comes and at last they can write.
3. The writer writes. They sit down at their typewriter (or computer, but often a typewriter because writers are quirky like that or because it's a Stephen King story from the 1970s) and they punch out a story. This also often involves a montage or similar time lapse but the suggestion is that the writer simply does nothing else but write from when the time inspiration hits until the time that first draft is done?
4. Did I say first draft? Oops! That's not how it works. Because inspiration is so strong that you only need to write a book once. You get those last words down and BAM! Your work is done. Time to send it to your agent or maybe straight to the editor working at the publishing house. This person may also be your best friend and wing man when you go out drinking. Having a purely professional relationship with your professional colleague would just be weird. They love it to. Best thing you ever wrote! Sold! Print it!
5. Six months later, the book is on shelves. Everybody is buying it. It's 10/10 and you're doing interviews for Time Magazine. Fame, money, prestige and acclaim are all yours! Midlist? Obscurity? What's that? You, sir, are a genius!
Obviously it's fiction. Nobody believes this is what it's like. Nobody wants a montage for the author's third draft, most of which he does while watching repeats of Bewitched in his pyjamas. There's no value or charm in an episode where the author browses BabyNames.com in search of a good name for a throw away character. And seeing the hero's hard work reap little to no reward, unless that's the key conflict to the story, isn't much fun to watch.
So whatever. It's fiction. Who gets upset about fiction? We all know it's not true. Writing's not like that and anybody with half a brain gets that.
But there's an idea in here I think does need some proper refuting,and that's the idea that authors work alone. Writers write the book, send it away and go onto the next book. The author jealously guards his manuscript, crafting it his art like a lone wolf. He is the keeper of the magic.
But that's not how it works. Books are made by teams and if that's an idea you need to get friendly with or you're in trouble. You, the writer, are not enough. At least, at the absolute very least, you need an editor.
And by editor, I mean an editor. Not you with an editor's hat on, not your friend who knows grammar really well. You want to make a professional book? Get a professional editor.
But books aren't made by writers and editors either. You're writing a book for people to read, yeah? So get some people to read it. Find some readers. Obviously they should be people who read lots of books. They'll have the best knowledge, intuitive or otherwise, of what works. They'll also probably get through the manuscript. Other writers are good, presuming they're writers who read books. But what's really important is that they're somebody willing to give you an honest opinion, not just of the manuscript as a whole, but as a play by play commentary, picking over each scene and telling you what they really think. Some people suggest this shouldn't be your mother or your spouse or your friends. But they can be, so long as they're willing to give you honest feedback.
We're not quite done though. Because books are made by writers and editors and test readers, but they're also made by your friends and your family, by people you brainstorm with and who suggest ideas, by their encouragement and their interest in your creative endeavors.
What it all comes down to is you are one person with one mind and one imagination. There's not enough in you to make a good book all by yourself. It takes a team, one bigger than you may have thought. Like the man said...
It's dangerous to go alone.
Monday, July 20, 2015
Soap Box: Homosexuality and The Church
A Christian opines on the politics around sexuality... Again.
For the longest time, the issue of sexuality was one of my greatest theological concerns. I've since lost interest. I interpret scripture one way, you interpret another way, he, she and they interpret it their way. We might all be wrong. In the end, God knows how he feels about sexuality and what we think means very little.
It's not a theological discussion I'm interested in anymore.
It doesn't matter.
Because what does matter, and what I am 100% certain of is that the church is wrong.
The church is just wrong.
Wrong.
And by the church I mean the Christian community globally in general and, especially, the leaders of that community.
The loudest voice in the church, right now, on this issue, is one with a political agenda. It's one that is strongly conservative, and one that wants to fight tooth and nail against same sex marriage in particular. Further, it's one that says homosexuality is wrong. Just plain old wrong. It's a sin. You shouldn't do it, you shouldn't be it. If you do and you are, then you are bad. Occasionally the word I hear is "abomination." And it's okay to use that word because it's in the Bible. This loud voice is one that sounds hateful and angry and it's full of condemnation and outrage.
But there's a problem with that.
It's missing something.
Did you see it?
Can you guess?
I'll tell you. This is the important part. This is why the church is wrong. Right now those loud voices are offering a big section of the Earth's population judgment and nothing else. That is NOT the church's job. It has never been the church's job to judge and it never will be the church's job to judge people. Judgment is not in our portfolio.
But Carl - you say, stepping in to hold a hypothetical conversation and explore the issue deeper - But Carl, if it is a sin, shouldn't something be said?
No. Usually the answer is yes, but this time it's no. You're wrong. You, Mr Church, hypothetical question asker, are wrong and you need to shut up about this one for a while and go sit in a corner and think about it. You can come back to the grown up's table when you are going to be responsible and offering something worthy to the discussion.
It's important to talk about sin. Sin is a big deal in Christianity. The church has a responsibility to discuss it and be aware of it. But the church has a much bigger responsibility and that is to lead people to God and encourage people to follow the examples set by Christ for all humanity. Because no sin is beyond God's power to forgive and no heart is outside God's power to change and nobody on this Earth now or ever is beyond God's love and compassion. The church's number one task in this world is to share that with people, and bring people to God.
And guess what?
You don't do that be being a judgmental arse!
If you, Mr Church, are certain beyond doubt that homosexuality is a sin then that's your business. I'm doing trying to argue that point one way or another. But before you open your mouth about it, you need to think, is what's about to come out of your trap going to bring people closer to God or push them away from God? If the answer is not the latter, then it's back to the corner for you. You can do better.
Okay, now, look, I know that you might not be like that. Maybe your little section of Christendom and your part of the community and your church leaders aren't like that. Am I annoyed by you? Well, maybe just a little. But it's not just you, it's me too. You see we're not loud enough. Maybe that angry, political, judgmental voice is coming from just a small few nutjobs or well meaning folks who lost their way. Maybe. Sure. I hope so. But what are you doing about it?
If you're not fighting against that voice, then you are complicit. You are complicit in driving people away from God and that makes you and I just as wrong.
Okay, I'm done with you, Mr Church. Go back to your corner. We'll chat later. There's a lot to discuss. Have a snack while you wait. I'm going to finish up talking to everybody else again.
This is the conclusion I've come to. This is my considered, insider opinion. It makes me kind of sad, too. That's why I've said something. This is me, personally, refusing to be complicit. I'll never be ashamed of my faith, but damn if I'm not sometimes embarrassed by my people.
You'll just have to forgive them.
A lot of them are old.
Old people. Am I right?*
By the way, since I want this blog to be informative and fun first and a place for me to opine at the masses second, I'm going to be making some changes to move these controversial soap boxing entries out of the main feed and into their own section. That way if you want to engage on the controversy, you can, if you just want updates and writing talk, they'll be the first thing you see. I'll still soap box as much as I feel inclined to, it'll just be slightly less visible for people who aren't interested.
*Jokes Old people are cool. They always have the best stories.
For the longest time, the issue of sexuality was one of my greatest theological concerns. I've since lost interest. I interpret scripture one way, you interpret another way, he, she and they interpret it their way. We might all be wrong. In the end, God knows how he feels about sexuality and what we think means very little.
It's not a theological discussion I'm interested in anymore.
It doesn't matter.
Because what does matter, and what I am 100% certain of is that the church is wrong.
The church is just wrong.
Wrong.
And by the church I mean the Christian community globally in general and, especially, the leaders of that community.
The loudest voice in the church, right now, on this issue, is one with a political agenda. It's one that is strongly conservative, and one that wants to fight tooth and nail against same sex marriage in particular. Further, it's one that says homosexuality is wrong. Just plain old wrong. It's a sin. You shouldn't do it, you shouldn't be it. If you do and you are, then you are bad. Occasionally the word I hear is "abomination." And it's okay to use that word because it's in the Bible. This loud voice is one that sounds hateful and angry and it's full of condemnation and outrage.
But there's a problem with that.
It's missing something.
Did you see it?
Can you guess?
I'll tell you. This is the important part. This is why the church is wrong. Right now those loud voices are offering a big section of the Earth's population judgment and nothing else. That is NOT the church's job. It has never been the church's job to judge and it never will be the church's job to judge people. Judgment is not in our portfolio.
But Carl - you say, stepping in to hold a hypothetical conversation and explore the issue deeper - But Carl, if it is a sin, shouldn't something be said?
No. Usually the answer is yes, but this time it's no. You're wrong. You, Mr Church, hypothetical question asker, are wrong and you need to shut up about this one for a while and go sit in a corner and think about it. You can come back to the grown up's table when you are going to be responsible and offering something worthy to the discussion.
It's important to talk about sin. Sin is a big deal in Christianity. The church has a responsibility to discuss it and be aware of it. But the church has a much bigger responsibility and that is to lead people to God and encourage people to follow the examples set by Christ for all humanity. Because no sin is beyond God's power to forgive and no heart is outside God's power to change and nobody on this Earth now or ever is beyond God's love and compassion. The church's number one task in this world is to share that with people, and bring people to God.
And guess what?
You don't do that be being a judgmental arse!
If you, Mr Church, are certain beyond doubt that homosexuality is a sin then that's your business. I'm doing trying to argue that point one way or another. But before you open your mouth about it, you need to think, is what's about to come out of your trap going to bring people closer to God or push them away from God? If the answer is not the latter, then it's back to the corner for you. You can do better.
Okay, now, look, I know that you might not be like that. Maybe your little section of Christendom and your part of the community and your church leaders aren't like that. Am I annoyed by you? Well, maybe just a little. But it's not just you, it's me too. You see we're not loud enough. Maybe that angry, political, judgmental voice is coming from just a small few nutjobs or well meaning folks who lost their way. Maybe. Sure. I hope so. But what are you doing about it?
If you're not fighting against that voice, then you are complicit. You are complicit in driving people away from God and that makes you and I just as wrong.
Okay, I'm done with you, Mr Church. Go back to your corner. We'll chat later. There's a lot to discuss. Have a snack while you wait. I'm going to finish up talking to everybody else again.
This is the conclusion I've come to. This is my considered, insider opinion. It makes me kind of sad, too. That's why I've said something. This is me, personally, refusing to be complicit. I'll never be ashamed of my faith, but damn if I'm not sometimes embarrassed by my people.
You'll just have to forgive them.
A lot of them are old.
Old people. Am I right?*
By the way, since I want this blog to be informative and fun first and a place for me to opine at the masses second, I'm going to be making some changes to move these controversial soap boxing entries out of the main feed and into their own section. That way if you want to engage on the controversy, you can, if you just want updates and writing talk, they'll be the first thing you see. I'll still soap box as much as I feel inclined to, it'll just be slightly less visible for people who aren't interested.
*Jokes Old people are cool. They always have the best stories.
Saturday, May 16, 2015
Action Speaks Louder Than Action
I want you to watch this scene from my all time favourite film 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon'. The important part is from 1:54 to 2:06, if you don't want to watch the whole thing. It is worth watching, but I'll fill you in on what happens before that important part.
You've just witnessed dialogue. You've just witnessed character development.
If you are familiar 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' then you know this as the scene in which Li Mu Bai (played by Chow Yun Fat) gets his sword, The Green Destiny, back from Jen Yu. But he does that 20 seconds into the video, long before this fight even begins. This resolves one of the major plotlines early in the film and, yet, the scene goes on for another two minutes and forty seconds after Li Mu Bai gets his sword back.
Why?
Is it because Li Mu Bai wants to find Jen Yu's teacher, The Jade Fox, and he wants to question her? Yes. Is it because he wants Jen Yu to leave her teacher and study under him, becoming the worthy disciple he longs for? Yeah, it's that too.
But in terms of scene questions (Will Li Mu Bai get the sword back? Will Jen Yu reveal where Jade Fox is hiding? Will Li Mu Bai convince Jen Yu to join him?) they're resolved pretty quickly and, in fact, they're answered with some pretty simple resolutions. He does get the sword, she doesn't join him and she doesn't tell him where Jade Fox is hiding. If you're keeping track, that's a Yes a No and a No for resolutions. "There's no Yes, but..." and zero "No, ands..." We can't even say it's "No, and Jen Yu gets away" because Li Mu Bai clearly lets her go willingly.
So this is bad, right? We've talked about this. Simple answers to scene questions lead to dead ends and pointless scenes and waste both space and opportunity, right? Right.
I'm glad you're paying attention.
But this scene is doing double time. There's another conversation going on here that has nothing to do with what the characters are saying. Did you see it? Do you want a chance to watch again? Remember, we're watching with the sound off.
For that minute that I got you to watch, Li Mu Bai picks up a sword and proceeds to smack Jen Yu around with it, then let's her go. Jen Yu is using a live blade, that's some real cutting steel she's swinging at him. Li Mu Bai hits her a couple of times, but mostly he blocks and deflects.
What Li Mu Bai is saying in this fight scene is "I can beat you. I am beating you. I'm so much better than you, I can use a stick to beat you. I'm barely even looking at you and I'm beating you. I am the superior fighter." But he's also saying something else. He says, "I don't want to kill you. I'm using this stick because I'm not here to kill you." Before this fight, earlier in the video, Li Mu Bai uses his sword to cut straight through the tip of Jen's weapon. Before that he blocks her attacks with his sword's scabbard, clearly making the statement that he is unafraid and that he can easily overcome her if he wishes. Li Mu Bai speaks to Jen Yu through combat.
And it's not a monologue. Jen Yu is speaking back and she is screaming. She strikes at Li Mu Bai with full force, with her sword drawn, putting everything into it. She says, "I will not be shown up. If I can, I will kill you, and I believe I can. I don't need you. Look at how great I am!" This is not a fight scene, this is a conversation. They are developing their relationship, learning about each other, setting up a lot for later in the movie. Li Mu Bai's frustration with Jen Yu and the doubts that she is worthy all begin here and they climax later on in the film in a similar but even more beautiful fight scene.
Did I say this scene is doing double time? Scratch that. This scene is doing triple time. Something else is happening here.
The characters are not only speaking to each other, they are revealing themselves to the audience. This is a big scene for character development and for showing who these characters are to us the film viewer. We learn a lot about both Li Mu Bai and Jen Yu in this scene all in how they move.
Jen Yu makes big attacks, throwing herself into every movement, adopting long stances and wide lunges, swinging the sword in big arcs over and around Li Mu Bai. On every retreat she flurries the sword again. She steps back and forward, switches and crosses her stances. She strikes mostly for Li Mu Bai's head, going for a killing strike in every movement. Her sword is always up, tip aimed at her opponent. In a matter of seconds, we learn that Jen Yu is aggressive and merciless, that she likes to look good when she fights and put on a show of her skill. Jen Yu is doing the martial arts we all think about when we think of martial arts movies.
Now look at Li Mu Bai. He barely moves at all. His stance is high, his guard is low, he follows Jen Yu's retreat with small steps. He holds The Green Destiny in his other hand, but keeps it pressed against his back at all times, essentially fighting one handed. He strikes at any target he's given - head, neck, hand, stomach. Li Mu Bai is a calculating and ruthless fighter, backing up an extraordinary confidence with an extraordinary skill that is tempered by his mercy. He doesn't show off, he fights. He makes direct movement, countering and striking in time with his opponent. He is completely at ease with what he is doing, not afraid or angry in his actions.
Well damn. It's no wonder Jen Yu didn't have a chance.
It's tempting to keep going and analyse this from a purely martial perspective, but let's focus on the writing.
Okay, so in three minutes, we've barely nudged out plot along. This is a long scene for a lot of quick resolutions. But this isn't about plot, this is about character. This is about developing the characters for the audience and developing the relationship two characters have in the story. We're doing three big things here all at the same time.
When I started writing 'Pilgrimage' and started developing Roland's character, one of the first questions I asked was "How does Roland fight?" If you're working on a story with lots of fighting, as 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' is and, indeed, as 'Pilgrimage' is, there is no reason for you not to think about how a character is revealed by the way they fight.
In 'Pilgrimage' Roland is big and heavy and he's strong and he likes to use all of that weight, throwing himself into and onto many of his enemies. But more importantly, Roland doesn't ever restrain himself. Roland hates himself and has the next best thing to a death wish for most of the book. He doesn't have a survival instinct to tell him that grabbing a sword with your hand is a bad idea, he just takes the opportunity to win, regardless of what it costs him. His self-loathing is reflected in his fighting. As is his desire to win. Roland will use whatever is on hand to give himself an edge, be it a magical artifact or a can of beans, and will gladly strike an opponent while they're down or severely injured. The only sense of accomplishment Roland has is victory in a fight and he will do what it takes to feel that satisfaction. He has no sense of honour or poor form in combat, he's only there to win.
At various times through-out the book Roland's self-loathing, lack of restraint and need to win is the subject of discussion, criticism, discovery and introspection by Roland and by other character. But he shows all of those features in the way he fights as much as he does in how he drinks and how he interacts with others and how he sees himself in quiet moments of reflection. Roland doesn't stop being Roland just because it's time for an action beat.
If you're writing a story with any fighting, there is no reason for you not to think about how a character is revealed by the way they fight.
If you're writing a story with any fighting, there is no reason for you not to think about how a character is revealed by the way they fight.
That's what I want you to take away from this.
Writing a fight scene to be dialogue is a little harder and you may take some time to figure that out, but this one is easy.
If you're writing a story with any fighting, there is no reason for you not to think about how a character is revealed by the way they fight.
This extends beyond fight scenes, too. Action scenes of all kinds can reveal character in the way they move and overcome obstacles. Characters can talk to each other in how they work against each other.
Bad actions scenes exist to fill time with spectacle.
Good action scenes exist to move the plot forward with excitement and suspense.
The best scenes do double or triple time, moving the plot, developing characters and/or revealing characters, expanding on subplots.*
*Note I did not say "The best actions scenes" but "The best scenes." That's all scenes, people. All of them.
You've just witnessed dialogue. You've just witnessed character development.
If you are familiar 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' then you know this as the scene in which Li Mu Bai (played by Chow Yun Fat) gets his sword, The Green Destiny, back from Jen Yu. But he does that 20 seconds into the video, long before this fight even begins. This resolves one of the major plotlines early in the film and, yet, the scene goes on for another two minutes and forty seconds after Li Mu Bai gets his sword back.
Why?
Is it because Li Mu Bai wants to find Jen Yu's teacher, The Jade Fox, and he wants to question her? Yes. Is it because he wants Jen Yu to leave her teacher and study under him, becoming the worthy disciple he longs for? Yeah, it's that too.
But in terms of scene questions (Will Li Mu Bai get the sword back? Will Jen Yu reveal where Jade Fox is hiding? Will Li Mu Bai convince Jen Yu to join him?) they're resolved pretty quickly and, in fact, they're answered with some pretty simple resolutions. He does get the sword, she doesn't join him and she doesn't tell him where Jade Fox is hiding. If you're keeping track, that's a Yes a No and a No for resolutions. "There's no Yes, but..." and zero "No, ands..." We can't even say it's "No, and Jen Yu gets away" because Li Mu Bai clearly lets her go willingly.
So this is bad, right? We've talked about this. Simple answers to scene questions lead to dead ends and pointless scenes and waste both space and opportunity, right? Right.
I'm glad you're paying attention.
But this scene is doing double time. There's another conversation going on here that has nothing to do with what the characters are saying. Did you see it? Do you want a chance to watch again? Remember, we're watching with the sound off.
For that minute that I got you to watch, Li Mu Bai picks up a sword and proceeds to smack Jen Yu around with it, then let's her go. Jen Yu is using a live blade, that's some real cutting steel she's swinging at him. Li Mu Bai hits her a couple of times, but mostly he blocks and deflects.
What Li Mu Bai is saying in this fight scene is "I can beat you. I am beating you. I'm so much better than you, I can use a stick to beat you. I'm barely even looking at you and I'm beating you. I am the superior fighter." But he's also saying something else. He says, "I don't want to kill you. I'm using this stick because I'm not here to kill you." Before this fight, earlier in the video, Li Mu Bai uses his sword to cut straight through the tip of Jen's weapon. Before that he blocks her attacks with his sword's scabbard, clearly making the statement that he is unafraid and that he can easily overcome her if he wishes. Li Mu Bai speaks to Jen Yu through combat.
And it's not a monologue. Jen Yu is speaking back and she is screaming. She strikes at Li Mu Bai with full force, with her sword drawn, putting everything into it. She says, "I will not be shown up. If I can, I will kill you, and I believe I can. I don't need you. Look at how great I am!" This is not a fight scene, this is a conversation. They are developing their relationship, learning about each other, setting up a lot for later in the movie. Li Mu Bai's frustration with Jen Yu and the doubts that she is worthy all begin here and they climax later on in the film in a similar but even more beautiful fight scene.
Did I say this scene is doing double time? Scratch that. This scene is doing triple time. Something else is happening here.
The characters are not only speaking to each other, they are revealing themselves to the audience. This is a big scene for character development and for showing who these characters are to us the film viewer. We learn a lot about both Li Mu Bai and Jen Yu in this scene all in how they move.
Jen Yu makes big attacks, throwing herself into every movement, adopting long stances and wide lunges, swinging the sword in big arcs over and around Li Mu Bai. On every retreat she flurries the sword again. She steps back and forward, switches and crosses her stances. She strikes mostly for Li Mu Bai's head, going for a killing strike in every movement. Her sword is always up, tip aimed at her opponent. In a matter of seconds, we learn that Jen Yu is aggressive and merciless, that she likes to look good when she fights and put on a show of her skill. Jen Yu is doing the martial arts we all think about when we think of martial arts movies.
Now look at Li Mu Bai. He barely moves at all. His stance is high, his guard is low, he follows Jen Yu's retreat with small steps. He holds The Green Destiny in his other hand, but keeps it pressed against his back at all times, essentially fighting one handed. He strikes at any target he's given - head, neck, hand, stomach. Li Mu Bai is a calculating and ruthless fighter, backing up an extraordinary confidence with an extraordinary skill that is tempered by his mercy. He doesn't show off, he fights. He makes direct movement, countering and striking in time with his opponent. He is completely at ease with what he is doing, not afraid or angry in his actions.
Well damn. It's no wonder Jen Yu didn't have a chance.
It's tempting to keep going and analyse this from a purely martial perspective, but let's focus on the writing.
Okay, so in three minutes, we've barely nudged out plot along. This is a long scene for a lot of quick resolutions. But this isn't about plot, this is about character. This is about developing the characters for the audience and developing the relationship two characters have in the story. We're doing three big things here all at the same time.
When I started writing 'Pilgrimage' and started developing Roland's character, one of the first questions I asked was "How does Roland fight?" If you're working on a story with lots of fighting, as 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' is and, indeed, as 'Pilgrimage' is, there is no reason for you not to think about how a character is revealed by the way they fight.
In 'Pilgrimage' Roland is big and heavy and he's strong and he likes to use all of that weight, throwing himself into and onto many of his enemies. But more importantly, Roland doesn't ever restrain himself. Roland hates himself and has the next best thing to a death wish for most of the book. He doesn't have a survival instinct to tell him that grabbing a sword with your hand is a bad idea, he just takes the opportunity to win, regardless of what it costs him. His self-loathing is reflected in his fighting. As is his desire to win. Roland will use whatever is on hand to give himself an edge, be it a magical artifact or a can of beans, and will gladly strike an opponent while they're down or severely injured. The only sense of accomplishment Roland has is victory in a fight and he will do what it takes to feel that satisfaction. He has no sense of honour or poor form in combat, he's only there to win.
At various times through-out the book Roland's self-loathing, lack of restraint and need to win is the subject of discussion, criticism, discovery and introspection by Roland and by other character. But he shows all of those features in the way he fights as much as he does in how he drinks and how he interacts with others and how he sees himself in quiet moments of reflection. Roland doesn't stop being Roland just because it's time for an action beat.
If you're writing a story with any fighting, there is no reason for you not to think about how a character is revealed by the way they fight.
If you're writing a story with any fighting, there is no reason for you not to think about how a character is revealed by the way they fight.
That's what I want you to take away from this.
Writing a fight scene to be dialogue is a little harder and you may take some time to figure that out, but this one is easy.
If you're writing a story with any fighting, there is no reason for you not to think about how a character is revealed by the way they fight.
This extends beyond fight scenes, too. Action scenes of all kinds can reveal character in the way they move and overcome obstacles. Characters can talk to each other in how they work against each other.
Bad actions scenes exist to fill time with spectacle.
Good action scenes exist to move the plot forward with excitement and suspense.
The best scenes do double or triple time, moving the plot, developing characters and/or revealing characters, expanding on subplots.*
*Note I did not say "The best actions scenes" but "The best scenes." That's all scenes, people. All of them.
Friday, May 1, 2015
Feed Your Imagination
I love ebooks. Ebooks are a fantastic development for readers. But the ebook vs print book is a false dichotomy and despite the arguments you see about the issue, I think most readers agree. People who like to read books just like to read books, printed or digital.
For me, I find I impulse buy more print books than ebooks. Seeing something new in a book store, taking it off the shelf and buying it on a whim is a far more satisfying experience than buying digital. Yes, consumerism has trained me well.
But this is how I happened to come across a book titled How To Disappear. It's a fascinating book on hiding in plain sight and making it hard for people to find you. It's a guide for people wanting to escape abusive relationship, people wanting to start their life again, and all manner of (legal) reasons for wanting to vanish into (and not out of) the system. I've never thought much about the topic or why people would want to disappear, but it certainly is a fascinating book. What really attracted me to it was the case files included in the book - the real life examples of people the author had helped to disappear.
I finished the book over the next couple of days and it now sits on my shelf alongside other books on topics as broad as religion, philosophy, psychology, sociology, history, art, politics, crime and assorted other books on random topics that have caught my interest.
Reading, as you no doubt know, is important for the writer. Reading is key to learning how to write. Study and consume literature as much as you can and learn from it. You can't write good fiction unless you read good fiction. Our favourite authors are our teachers.
But are you also reading non-fiction?
This all comes back to that old maxim "Write what you know."
What do you know? Do you know history? What about religion and philosophy? Psychology, sociology and politics? Martial arts? Superstition? Mechanics? Science? What do you know?
You see "write what you know" is layers upon layers of wisdom that you should be heeding. But I also look at it as a challenge. "Write what you know" demands that you know things. It's not just about knowing what it is like to be a middle class suburban white boy who likes cats and the rain but prefers not to mix them. It's not just about knowing what it's like to be a human that loves and hates and cries in sadness and in joy. It's not just about knowing what life in a city is like, or life in a small town, or growing up in the '90s or staring at a long list of job adds and feeling the struggle between your pride and your desperation.
All of that is part of your human experience and it is what you know.
But what you know is also about how to hold a sword, how to ride a motorcycle, how to quote classic literature and form a logical argument and teach using the Socratic Method.What you know is how to cook a damned good hamburger using whatever ingredients you have on hand and knowing the serene pleasure of a long walk or the short lived thrill of a downhill sprint. What you know is the biographies of serial killers and the detectives who stopped them.
All of that is what you know, too.
And the more you know, the more you can write.
The things we learn from non-fiction is food for our imagination. We can find inspiration and ideas in the true stories of our world. How much truer is the climactic sword fight you've planned in the third act going to be for your reader if you have also stood, sword in hand, staring down a bigger, stronger opponent? How accurately can your murderer-come-nihilistic-philosopher if you have never read Dostoyevsky's 'Notes From Underground'?
I've said this before and it bears repeating: "Write What You Know" is not a limitation but a challenge. Learn. Know more and write more. Fill in those gaps in your experience with other people's experience. Non-fiction will feed your creativity and take your imagination to new places.
So read widely and read often and make space in your schedule for non-fiction.
Saturday, April 25, 2015
The Book Club 3: This Time It's Personal
It's that time again, kids! Yes, it's time to get your read on. And because this is the third annual* book club book recommendation, I'm recommending twice the books for twice the fun!
Sort of!
So the first book I want to recommend is one you might already be familiar with. It's 'The Princess Bride' by William Goldman. You've no doubt seen the movie and heard the quotes and considered buying the t-shirts. I personally recommend the 25th or 30th anniversary edition because it has more features that are quite enjoyable. 'The Princess Bride' is a lot of fun and you should read it. I approve this message!
The second book is not actually a book, it is a series of books. It is 'A Series of Unfortunate Events' by Lemony Snicket (AKA Daniel Handler.) Yes, I am recommending that you, all you adults out there, read a thirteen book series aimed at children. At least read the first one and maybe the fourth. Books two and three are sort of optional in that they don't do much that the first one didn't. Book four is where it really picks up. But regardless, I say read them all. They're quite enjoyable.
But I'm not just here to recommend books that are good. You can find those books without me. I'm here to recommend books that will teach you something.
Both 'A Series of Unfortunate Events' and 'The Princess Bride' will teach you to be weird. Being weird is good. It's good to be different, to stand out, to be noticeable.
You see there's a standard for books. We see the standard all the time and we learn to write a book like these standard books and there is nothing wrong with that. Many great books are standard books. Some of the greatest books are standard books. But they're still standard. They follow the set conventions. One convention is particular is that the world of the book and the world of the reader are separate and do not intrude on each other. We the reader are not a part of the book and we acknowledge that the book is not a historical record and we're okay with that.
Not these books.
William Goldman provides a framing device for his books in which he is not writing the story but abridging it for re-publication. The book has a fictional history, the world has a fictional history and William Goldman has a fictional history but by constantly addressing us, the reader, and by providing a framing device like this, he blurs those lines and invites us to be a part of the world in which the story is taking place. 'The Princess Bride' is a story told in layers. Both the creation of the book is a story and the book is a story.
It's hard to explain.
I have to admit I didn't care much for it at first and I sometimes wished that William Goldman and his framing device would get lost and let me just read the book. But in the end it grew on me and I became as much involved in the fake story about the book as the fake story that is the book.
Head spinning yet?
You'll have to read it to get a full grasp of what I'm talking about.
A little easier is 'A Series of Unfortunate Events.' The framing device here is similar: The story is real, the people and places are real. The narrator (Lemony Snicket) is a character in this world, a researcher reaching the story, and he is telling the story to the reader. Daniel Handler (as Lemony Snicket) constantly addresses the reader to remind us that the story is true and that there are many happier and less unfortunate stories you could be reading.
Again, the author is blurring the line between the world of the book and the world of the reader by directly speaking to the audience and asking them to believe that they are also a part of the world. You see in the world of 'A Series of Unfortunate Events' by Lemony Snicket, there is a book called 'A Series of Unfortunate Events' and it is written by Lemony Snicket and that book is the same book as the one you are reading.
Chew on that idea for a little while and let it settle in your brain's stomach.
Now you might like this way or writing or you might hate it. You might decide to try something similar or you may not. The point is that we have conventions - many of them for a good reason - and we write within those conventions - often for a good reason. But some people don't and we should be aware that we don't have to, either.
As authors we do not read for just enjoyment but also to learn. We learn from those who succeeded and failed before us. William Goldman and Daniel Handler have succeeded and met with much acclaim for their work and they did it, in part, by breaking with convention. Whether or not we walk a similarly unconventional path, we can learn from what they did and we should be aware that rules can be broken.
Jive to your own groove, kids, and keep writing.
*Not really annual.
Sort of!
So the first book I want to recommend is one you might already be familiar with. It's 'The Princess Bride' by William Goldman. You've no doubt seen the movie and heard the quotes and considered buying the t-shirts. I personally recommend the 25th or 30th anniversary edition because it has more features that are quite enjoyable. 'The Princess Bride' is a lot of fun and you should read it. I approve this message!
The second book is not actually a book, it is a series of books. It is 'A Series of Unfortunate Events' by Lemony Snicket (AKA Daniel Handler.) Yes, I am recommending that you, all you adults out there, read a thirteen book series aimed at children. At least read the first one and maybe the fourth. Books two and three are sort of optional in that they don't do much that the first one didn't. Book four is where it really picks up. But regardless, I say read them all. They're quite enjoyable.
But I'm not just here to recommend books that are good. You can find those books without me. I'm here to recommend books that will teach you something.
Both 'A Series of Unfortunate Events' and 'The Princess Bride' will teach you to be weird. Being weird is good. It's good to be different, to stand out, to be noticeable.
You see there's a standard for books. We see the standard all the time and we learn to write a book like these standard books and there is nothing wrong with that. Many great books are standard books. Some of the greatest books are standard books. But they're still standard. They follow the set conventions. One convention is particular is that the world of the book and the world of the reader are separate and do not intrude on each other. We the reader are not a part of the book and we acknowledge that the book is not a historical record and we're okay with that.
Not these books.
William Goldman provides a framing device for his books in which he is not writing the story but abridging it for re-publication. The book has a fictional history, the world has a fictional history and William Goldman has a fictional history but by constantly addressing us, the reader, and by providing a framing device like this, he blurs those lines and invites us to be a part of the world in which the story is taking place. 'The Princess Bride' is a story told in layers. Both the creation of the book is a story and the book is a story.
It's hard to explain.
I have to admit I didn't care much for it at first and I sometimes wished that William Goldman and his framing device would get lost and let me just read the book. But in the end it grew on me and I became as much involved in the fake story about the book as the fake story that is the book.
Head spinning yet?
You'll have to read it to get a full grasp of what I'm talking about.
A little easier is 'A Series of Unfortunate Events.' The framing device here is similar: The story is real, the people and places are real. The narrator (Lemony Snicket) is a character in this world, a researcher reaching the story, and he is telling the story to the reader. Daniel Handler (as Lemony Snicket) constantly addresses the reader to remind us that the story is true and that there are many happier and less unfortunate stories you could be reading.
Again, the author is blurring the line between the world of the book and the world of the reader by directly speaking to the audience and asking them to believe that they are also a part of the world. You see in the world of 'A Series of Unfortunate Events' by Lemony Snicket, there is a book called 'A Series of Unfortunate Events' and it is written by Lemony Snicket and that book is the same book as the one you are reading.
Chew on that idea for a little while and let it settle in your brain's stomach.
Now you might like this way or writing or you might hate it. You might decide to try something similar or you may not. The point is that we have conventions - many of them for a good reason - and we write within those conventions - often for a good reason. But some people don't and we should be aware that we don't have to, either.
As authors we do not read for just enjoyment but also to learn. We learn from those who succeeded and failed before us. William Goldman and Daniel Handler have succeeded and met with much acclaim for their work and they did it, in part, by breaking with convention. Whether or not we walk a similarly unconventional path, we can learn from what they did and we should be aware that rules can be broken.
Jive to your own groove, kids, and keep writing.
*Not really annual.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)