The Art of Show vs. Tell

In a previous blog post in December, I noted that there was a dark side to show don't tell. That's because, if you don't actually spell every little detail out, people could miss it and then complain that they're confused, which is no way to have a reader. Titillated, yes, but not confused or frustrated.

It's not a black and white business and making things full of delightful subtleties to please one audience might lose you one that wants things less obscure, just as a straightforward narrative might bore someone who lives for nuance. Pick the audience you want. That's one of the challenges.

But show vs. tell is ubiquitous advice for a very good reason: it makes reading so much more compelling and interesting. I love it as a writer and strive for it; I don't know a writer that doesn't.

Actually pulling off show don't tell is another thing altogether, though,because showing is more difficult than just saying:

John was a tall boy with red hair, lots of freckles and love of basketball.

However, it doesn't have any personality. It's dull and lifeless and says next to nothing about John. Now, try this:

If Sarah wanted to find John, she knew better than to look for him in the library or studying. Depth of winter or height of summer, she could find him on the outdoor court in the park, his short red hair spiky with sweat, his freckles so numerous he looked like he had a rash. He might not have put any meat on his gangly form, that seemed to shoot up overnight, but he knew how to move it around the basketball court and get that orange ball to do everything but fix him lunch.

Now, what do we know? Well, everything from the first sentence, of course, which makes sense since this one's more than five times longer. But, we also know he has a relationship with Sarah good enough she knows where to find him and where not to find him, that he's not addicted to studying, that his height is a recent thing, and that he not only loves basketball, he's damn good at it. And now there's also a much stronger sense of who he is. He hasn't said anything. He hasn't done anything, really, but I think we'd be speculating about his personality to a much higher degree in the second paragraph than the first. There's also a potential for someone who might be interested in the topic to become interested in where it goes from here. And who's Sarah?

Interactions between people are a great way to enact show vs. tell. What they say to each other, how they react. Dialog between people can provide backstory or explain something complex without just writing it out. You can explain motivations, move the story forward, make sociological points and, the great thing, is it all seems so natural. Like you weren't actually writing it.

Action can be show don't tell. If the character is limping, I don't have to explain  he hurt himself or why he isn't chasing someone. If he punches someone in the face, I don't have to pause and tell the reader: that guy really irritated my character. Actions tell us who someone really is, character-wise, what you stand for, what you won't stand for, what matters.

But, that's why it can be tricky. The more clearly you define your character through dialog and interactions and action, the more careful you have to be not to change course midstream, either to fulfill a plot point or to make things fit. I can't speak for all readers but, for me, since characters are my favorite, I hate when I feel like I've identified with a character and then they do something out of character. At best, it can make the identity and personality of the character murky which isn't what you want. At worst, it can drive a reader away (yes, that's happened to me).

But what does that mean? It means you can't make a protective chivalrous guy rape his girlfriend and keep that image. It means you can't make someone who has proven to be a loyal friend over time sell out his buds for a bit of spending capital. You can't have Quigon Jin accept the notion that a small boy will run a very dangerous race so you can get funds (say what? the space station doesn't take off-world money? How contrived is that?) or that you'll take him away from that mother and leave her as a slave. Unless you like to see Liam Neeson rolling his eyes at his own lines.

More subtly, you can't express how clever someone is without showing it in deed. You can't convince us that someone's an expert if they flub it every time they come up against anything out of the ordinary. They can't be a badass and get their butt whipped every fight. Show your character to be clever or faithful or kind or brutal or whatever they are. Make sure the exceptions have motivations that make sense (we all have exceptions).

In the end, I think it's all about getting to know someone much like their friends and new characters get to know them and finding about them in a natural sort of way.

At least, that's how I see it.

Read more...

I Don't Get the Big Deal About "The Hunger Games"

I don't do reviews, as a general rule (manga/anime is an exception but that's on a different blog). Several reasons for this, not the least of which is that my tastes are eclectic (VERY eclectic) and I'm generally focused on one aspect of the story to the exclusion (and forgiveness) of all others. And, let's not forget, I'm weird.

But, I do bring things up if they make me pause, especially if they have the potential to entice me to write again. There are two things that do that - a story/character I adore that makes me want to do something better with my writing or inspires me on a hitherto unforeseen writing path...and a story that is quite successful commercially that makes me roll my eyes and wonder what the heck is going on. 

My daughter is a fan of The Hunger Games, and she's one of many many others. People love the book (disclaimer, I haven't read it) and gush about the movie, too. My daughter loved them both when she was quite critical of the movie Twilight despite her delight in the books (which she no longer has). I liked the Twilight books myself (and the movies, I might add) though not in the everyone-should-love-this sort of way but more in the this-is-an-intriguing-character sort of way. And, for those of you who know me, one character I really enjoy is all I need to forgive plenty of other things (including some "science" that still makes me cringe if I think about it).

She's got a decent batting average, actually, on introducing me to stuff I really like and hit a homerun with the anime Bleach I've spent the summer addicted to. Loved a number of characters, the premise, etc. But other stuff she wants me to try, well, it's hit or miss.

Now, if you love the books and haven't seen the movie or haven't delved into either but want to and don't want spoilers STOP READING NOW. 'Cause I can't tell you what bothered me without telling you about the story, so there are spoilers galore out there. And I'm not saying you can't like it for whatever reason you liked it. I, however, did not.

First off, it's depressing. I know that's in with YA literature right now, but I don't like being depressed unless there's a good reason for it, so you get a pass from me with an oppressive air talking about the holocaust (which was depressing and gruesome but a good lesson to remember) and not one on a notional fictional future that, as far as I could see, made no damn sense at all. Not that there isn't plenty of SF that doesn't make sense, but often the characters made sense or there was a point, or, at least, it was funny (think Demolition Man).

We start off with our oppressed people, tormented for 74 years due to uprising against what was, apparently, Big Brother, direct from 1984 (I guess he showed up late). The punishment for this effrontery was to take people at random from the areas that rebelled and make 'em fight it out to the death, Gladiator meets Survivor style and the winner gets glory and riches and stuff. Now, first off, that's a stupid punishment. What government's gonna care, even a local one? The whole dingy shanty-town area (replete with coal miners in the enlightened future) is surrounded by lush landscape which no one is farming or making of use of in any way, while the shanty-town inhabitants stave off starvation by working for Big Brother and killing small game.

Old concept, which, as a die-hard historian and SF reader, I've read versions of at least a dozen times. A handful of cliches, obvious (and, truth told, effective) emotional manipulations (like kill the twelve year old friend so, when we take out the "bad guys" at the end because we had no choice (kill or be killed), the reader/viewer will nod their head and say, "Serves 'em right." Same tactic has been used in at least half the James Bond movies). In the end, they "outsmart" Big Brother and she doesn't have to kill everyone, but even that doesn't make sense. (It's all about giving hope while reminded the people who's in charge WHILE still getting great ratings. Letting the two commit suicide fits way better (and is far more eye-catching) than letting potentially dangerous renegades get off scott free.)

But I'd likely forgive all this if I just liked somebody. I like strong female protagonists, so you'd think I'd like this one, but she's not particularly savvy, she's willing to use people and, in fact, has only the fact she's willing to go in her sister's place to recommend her. Nice gesture but not enough to make her a likeable character.

Or, if there was a point. I know, lessons are not supposed to be in stuff today, but I gotta say, when I spend a couple hours watching something, I either want to be entertained or intrigued. I need a point or an interesting character to be intrigued, or at least something original. I seriously didn't see the point. I'm glad it was just a couple of hours wasted rather than taking the time to read it.

Or maybe I just missed it. In any case, whatever makes this the delight of thousands if not millions, I don't get it.

Note - I might be oversensitive. I have a survival type story, in fact, two novels. No cameras but survival is still the name of the game with some internal hostility. Ah, but in mine, people have to work together. Maybe that's what I'm doing wrong. 

Read more...

Diving Into the Uncomfortable

There's a saying in writing - "Write what you know." My friend, Darrell B Nelson, says, "Write what you don't know." I'm not an advocate for either approach - both have their benefits and drawbacks - but I'm a strong believer in good characters, strong characters, characters that challenge the mindset of the average (American) reader as they are my most likely audience.

Historically, my characters have been, to an extent, modeled on myself or my husband, on people we know and interacted with, combined with varying amounts of imagination. I'll still do that, but I want to give my characters more depth and an expanded viewpoint from what I have. So, as a lover of knowledge and advocate for research, I have always exhaustively delved into cultures and histories that fascinated me. Since my interests are eclectic, that means I can name most kings of England and not a single one for Prussia, for example (in fact ,that whole Prussia/Holy Roman Empire thing still confuses me a bit). I've read Russian history and studied it for my own edification. I've read about the different Chinese dynasties and histories and the same with Japan. I find it fascinating, noting particularly the differences in how cultures deal with different but comparable issues.

That education in multi-culturism (which is not, by any means, complete) helps me when world building or culture building so I'm not restricted to Western notions of life or right and wrong, etc. I can tailor necessities to the circumstances. Some of what I learned made me more confident pointing out physical differences and addressing those between characters (i.e. characters of different color or, in some cases, species). I've frequently butted headfirst into the stereotypes of men and women as well, using, defying or ignoring them as required to tell a good story.

Well, I've stumbled onto a new area of research that I haven't really pursued before, through a very unexpected source. Smut.

Now, don't get me wrong. I've stumbled over smut before. I have seen a representative smattering of what I tend to think of as man smut (like pornographic films and the like), which has never appealed to me, and more than my fair share of woman smut, usually in the form of "romance" novels but often having no more soul than the average stag film (and frequently objectifying women as much or more than the male counterpart) . I don't object to sex in my novels (or films), but novels or films that are nothing but excuses to parade prurient scenes have never interested me.

Novels that tell good stories that have believable/likable/fascinating characters where sex also occurs, however, I've always enjoyed just fine. Possibly still counting as smut, but not JUST smut. Smut with substance, or is that an oxymoron?

Well, I've found a hitherto untapped selection of smut, different than I'm used to, and I have to admit my interest has been piqued. Just as shoujo manga rekindled my interest in romantic stories by having characters I loved and cherishing people who actually were capable of adult self-control (as opposed to those romances full of "adults"), I have discovered a resource for expanding my outlook on a group of people I'm woefully ignorant of: homosexuals.

Now, if you get the willies just hearing the term or are militantly anti-gay, you might as well stop reading here. And this will probably bleed over into several posts, so you're forewarned. On the other hand, if you want to expand what you understand on this subject, as I did, perhaps you should read forward, even if it makes you uncomfortable.

Now, just because I'm not confident to write a gay persona doesn't mean I don't know any gay people. I do. Quite probably more than I think I do. Nor have I ever had the slightest heartburn with people finding happiness with whoever made them happiest, gender notwithstanding. I have never felt otherwise and don't now.

But I also knew that, as a heterosexual girl, I had very little insight into the world of same-gender romance, lifestyles and interactions. Even where I could speculate regarding girls, I was hopelessly clueless when it came to gay men except what I've seen peripherally in films and such. For that reason, I have really not assayed gay characters. I don't object to them, but I'd want to portray them realistically. I know they're people like anyone else, but they have different issues than many of the rest of us.

Recent, an otaku acquaintance of mine suggested a number of mangas, including "Betrayal Knows My Name" which I'm enjoying. Apparently, there's a yaoi element attached to it (yaoi being the manga term for boy-boy romantic manga, which is popular with girls too, apparently), so bunches of yaoi jumped into my amazon.com recommendations. So, although I'd never been interested in it, I checked some out.

And became fascinated.

Not with the acts depicted (and most are pretty graphic about it) nor about wishing I could indulge. I'm not properly equipped and the flexibility required (apparently) is rather daunting. I became fascinated with the stories, the scenarios, the characters in this or that yaoi.

Now, don't get me wrong, much of it is smut smut, in the truest sense of the word: "stories" and characters brought together with little fanfare as an excuse to show sex. That pales quickly. And, yaoi, even more than man porn but perhaps less than woman porn, lends itself to force and violence more than average. Stories at least skirting the edge of pederasty are also common (at least in the one's I've read so far), so not all good. I don't like rape or child abuse, I don't care which genders are involved. (Note, however, that "child" is a term I'm using loosely since the age of consent in Japan is 13 and everyone is well over that.).

But, I have also found profound food for thought, not only into the challenges and interactions for gays, particularly in a world that stigmatizes them based on their sexual preferences, but also in what they're looking for, how they interact, and both the parallels and disconnects with romantic relationships between men and women. Also, what makes them different from "regular" men and what doesn't.

So, though what I'm learning is coming from manga, where I'll best be able to use what I learn is writing, so I'll be writing about it here.

Starting next time.

Read more...

How I'll Know I'll Have Made It

I'm not talking about being published, though, of course, that would likely have to happen first. And I'm not talking about book sales, though, naturally, that would be nice, too.

But I don't just want to be a successful writer in the monetary sense. I want to write good books, books that touch people with characters that people care about. And I think I know now how to to know when that happens.

I spend odd moments checking on the Skip Beat! forum using my new android phone. It's a nice distraction and I enjoy speculating about what will be happening next in this long-running manga and gushing over it with other enthusiasts. 'Cause, hey, I'm an otaku. But I've discovered something.

You know when characters have really touched people when readers get really really angry defending one over the other or determining who's better at this or that. Star Trek, you find some true fans, start laying into one captain or another and they'll come out swinging.

I've been listening to the talk on the forum, one of the threads all about which of our romantic leads, who both struggled in childhood, had it harder or more painful. The son of the celebrity quietly struggling to live up to his father's regard and dealing with brutal bullying vs. the girl ignored and marginalized by a mother who left her in the care of others most of her life.

We've only seen flashbacks on the two individuals and have some information on the impact each of their pasts have had on them. Both are strong individuals with scars and baggage they are largely working through together. Why in the world would it matter which had it technical harder than the other.

But people get passionate and figuratively shake fists and forgo courtesy, telling anyone who doesn't see it "their" way they're stupid or they aren't reading things, yadda yadda yadda.

I'm not saying I want people to become assholes because they care about the characters in my books, but it says something, something important, that a reader can be passionate about a character, passionate about who they end with , what happens to them, how other fans see the characters they love.

When readers get spun up defending your characters, as a writer it says that you wrote characters that touched people, that pulled out emotion, that mattered to people enough they would defend the fictional histories or personalities traits to other readers.

That's what I want my readers to do. When I have readers fighting among themselves on whether Dylan Chroz or Xander would win the bout on Jeopardy! (which is silly because Dylan would win unless Dante da Silva was playing, what with his 700+ years of experience to draw on). I want people to yell at the book, "Watch out!" or "You bastard!" or "You just made a real mistake, pal."

When people defend the people I've created against other fans, that's when I'll know:

I've done it. I've touched them and made up people that strangers have adopted, loved and identified with.

I'll have done what I set out to do.

Read more...

Swamped

You ever been hit with scenes so quickly you can't get 'em on paper quick enough? And, of course, they would bombard me when I'm working overtime like mad for three weeks.

Not necessarily in the order I'm writing it, of course. I'm planning some rather complex interactions between characters and I've been having fun thinking of scenes between all my interesting characters. In fact, before I know it, they've gotten away from me and I know I'm dabbling in books I'm not even writing yet.

Not that I'm having trouble when I sit down and move forward in the actual book, during those brief snatches of time when I can actually write. It seems to flow pretty effortlessly, too. So, I can't complain...

Except, with so many scenes and so little time, blogging is likely to fall by the wayside until I get a lull in something, either my work schedule or the flood of scenes I enjoy.

Read more...

Paranormal vs. Fantasy/Science Fiction

I was reading a series of books a friend recommended to me, quite a successful series I believe, the Anita Blake series by Laurell K. Hamilton that should have been right up my alley. Some attempts at humor, generally kickass heroine who is center stage, weird happenings everywhere.

Except I didn't. Nothing wrong with those that like it. We can't all like the same things. There were a few reasons for this for me, and I can go into them, but I'm not sure they're all important. What I noted after reading the first book was that I only liked one character, Jean-Claude (because apparently becoming a vampire negates the necessity of a last name), a vampire Anita threatened to kill a few times and who was in, what, fifty pages of the book? I liked him well enough to try a second book, but kept running into the same issue (and a few new ones). I just didn't like the main character. There were a few reasons for this, too, like hypocrisy and doing idiotic things, being blase about killing her "friends" one minute and willing to die for them the next, etc. But I could have forgiven all of that if I had liked the essential her. And I figured out why: to her, what you are is more important than who.

One reason I generally haven't been part of the recent vampire fetish (Twilight doesn't count - they're nothing like vampires and besides, that's not why I liked it) is because I never understood the big deal with vampires. They've never seemed inherently interesting. Having a story centered around vampires, to my way of thinking, isn't any different in concept from having a story centered around Elves in Middle Earth or lizardians on Seti Omega Nine. They're all stories about people, whether gifted or scaly or sparkly or what-have-you. The rules and priorities change, depending on specific needs, but the story about people inherently is the same. That's how it is to me, because I was raised on Science Fiction and Fantasy, on the original Star Trek, on Heinlein. In Fantasy/Science Fiction, who you are always outranked what you were. It was one way you had to tell the good guys from the bad guys. Bad guys were all concerned with the color of your skin, whether you had hair or feathers, which end you broke on your boiled egg. Good guys either knew better or learned better over the course of the story.

What seems to be going on in paranormal is an entirely different thing, where being some sort of something different inherently makes one evil. True, you might fight your evil side and, if you can fight it indefinitely, you could be accepted as redeemed by normal people, but you don't get the benefit of the doubt. You're evil until proven otherwise. And there are no limits to the level or extent of evil you are as something "other," it comes with the extra powers like a promotional extra. So, if you're a protagonist who happens to be something other, you have to indefinitely fight the inherent evil in you. If you're not an "other," you can kill all the others you like to your hearts content, 'cause, hey, they're evil.

To me that's a throwback to the "The only good Injun is a dead Injun," and "Only good Jew is a dead Jew," kind of thinking I've always abhorred. And, truthfully, thought we were finally outgrowing. Pity.

I have a problem with that kind of thinking. I don't think anything is inherently evil (or, for that matter, inherently good). I think how someone is treated should a direct result of what they do and who they are, not what they happen to be (unless that's something like a serial rapist). In my books, that notion is a recurring theme, the basis for how my characters interact and grow. I had started to worry that the notion was outdated, that I'd be preaching to the choir.

Apparently not.

Guess I don't write paranormal after all.

Read more...

Wasted Potential: Talk the Talk

Last time I talked about relationship between characters. One has to interact with the setting and in the plot, too, but I'm a big character person so that's where I tend to focus. One thing I didn't really get into, but should have, is a big aspect of both revealing a character and developing relationships: dialog.

I love dialog. I mean I really love dialog. If there's an aspect of writing I really take pride in, it's my dialog.

Ironically, even though I love dialog, in reality I don't speak like regular people do. Rather than let that bother me, I have a tendency to use that to my advantage. Why? Because I usually include at least one character who speaks much like I do (stupidly large vocabulary, esoteric words in ordinary usage and usually complete sentences). Those characteristics in speech pattern allow the reader to automatically pick up on many aspects of my character painlessly, making revealing him or her that much easier. It also provides contrast to other characters who speak in ways more in keeping with "typical," but even that varies by age and background and social standing, etc.

What I mean is dialog is a great way to provide contrast to your characters. The great character authors I know all get this. I can go back and read pages of dialog where I could completely skip the "so and so said" bits and I'd still know who was talking because the characters have distinctive voices and styles and concerns. If you go back and read your dialog (and read it out loud because nothing highlights crappy dialog like reading it out loud) and both sides sound the same, you'd better go back and fix it unless they're identical twins that share the same brain. Which would be cool, but I digress.

By varying the way people speak, you can readily portray youth, inexperience, education, attitude, thoughtfulness, emotionality, perspective... Really, everything. It's not just the things they say, but how they say it, their phrasing, vocabulary, syntax. Even the pauses and lack of speaking can say a great deal about character. Really, I can't stress enough how important, how vital, vibrant contrasting dialog is to making your characters distinct and alive.

A note about dialect: Most advice I've read on dialects and distinctly different pronunciation has said, "don't show it." As with most rules, I'm of the opinion that you should use that rule unless your story suffers by it. Truth is, reading dialect is hard for many people and, if readers are frustrated trying to figure out what the character's supposed to sound like or what they're saying, one can make a good argument that it's counterproductive. Additionally, and I mean this most kindly, most people can't write it believably worth a damn (and don't realize that they can't). That reason alone should give anyone pause before they decide to try, because, if the stuff that's right gives a reader pause, the stuff that sucks will make the reader pull their hair. And it makes the writer look like a hack. Probably not what you're going for.

Having said all that, dialect can provide a contrast. In generally, I do not advocate writing it all out phonetically, but putting in dropped consonants ("Just sayin'.") or specific words with a distinctive sound that speak to the character ("me darlin'" vs. "my darling" or even "dahling") can go a long way to setting a character apart and giving the reader a feel for a character's voice (or even "who" they are). I also have to mention that, when someone really nails dialect, it can be fantastic, as in James Herriot's hilarious memoirs, which would not be the same without the many many different dialects he puts in.

Give the dialog voice. Dialog can not only make or break your characters and their relationships, bad dialog can really bog down a story and make it sound fake. Stiff uninteresting dialog (particularly if it's used to expose some key elements) can quickly sound stilted and contrived, clumsy and, well, boring. Dialog should not sound like narration (unless you're deeply in third person POV and the narration has similar voice). Dialog should not sound like a news report; it does not need to be objective, unemotional or polite unless your character is. It should not sound professorial unless your character is. Witty characters should be sarcastic and smart, but every statement doesn't have to be a quip (in fact it can't be without sounding stupid). Put in emotions, stuttering, shocked pauses, inflammatory language, spoken (i.e. poor) grammar in as realistic way as possible. It needs to be alive and full of color and personality or you might as well have narrated it. Let me show you an example:

"Stop it," he said, when she flumped down next to him and laid her head on his shoulder. He shrugged to dislodge her, but she just moved with him and gave him a grin. "I'm trying to study here."

"You're always studying. My brother says you've become positively dull. Talk to me instead."

"Cory can speak for himself. If I'm so dull, go away." He could feel the heat of her body through his clothes and the distraction was sending his heart racing. "Don't you have something better to do than bug your brother's best friend?"

She hugged his arm and rubbed the side of her head against his shoulder. "No."

Vs.

"Gah! You brat, get off," he said, when she flumped down next to him and laid her head on his shoulder. He shrugged to dislodge her, but she just moved with him and gave him a grin. "Can't you see I'm working here? Some of us have to study."

"Ha! Like you need to study. My brother says you're already setting the curve. You never even come up for air. I'm doing my civic duty by peeling you away from those books before you turn into an old man. Play with me."

"Cory's supposed to be studying, too. If he's got a complaint, he can tell me himself instead of getting his kid sister to do his dirty work. Get lost before you catch my senility." He could feel the heat of her body through his clothes and the distraction was sending his heart racing. "Don't you social butterflies always have things to do? Shopping? Group trips to the bathroom? Facebook flaming? Why don't you flutter away and leave me in peace?"

She hugged his arm and rubbed the side of her head against his shoulder. "Peace? No way! That's the last thing I'm going to leave you with."

In the first one, though we're saying effectively the same thing (and everything outside the quotes is identical), there's an entirely different feel to the characters. In the first, he's studious and distracted by her presence (friend's sister) and she's trying to get his attention. However, it's not clear how he's affected, how well these two know each other, whether her rather attraction/distraction is deliberate or innocent. In the second, it's wordier, but we have a better sense of both him and her. You can get a sense of offense from being characterized as studious (and responds with an attack on her perceived frivolousness). Clearly, they know each other as more than just passing acquaintances. Just as clearly, she has some knowledge of her effect on him and is doing it deliberately.

Make it realistic but not too realistic. Real conversations between real people are, largely, dull. If you recorded your conversations with everyone you spoke to during the day, you'd be nodding off in minutes. We tend to talk inconsequential nonsense a large portion or the time. It's like certain sports - fun to play, dull as dishwater to watch. So, you need to excise those portions from real conversation that don't do anything for the story, for character development, for entertainment. You don't want movie dialog, quite, where (if written well) it's all witty and stuff. But you want a dialog that, if you heard it in a movie or a TV show, wouldn't make you want to switch channels. It's got to sound realistic (like people might actually have this conversation so not wall to wall quips and only significant statements) without sounding like a "typical" conversation with all the trivial nonsense. Again, I can't stress enough reading dialog out loud before you get happy with it. Get an audience if you can, one that will tell you the truth.

Don't say everything. People don't tell everything they're thinking, say everything that comes across their minds (except for a very very small number of irksome folks). So, if your characters explain everything, every key aspect of a situation, every nuance of their emotional state, they won't seem very realistic. People automatically edit. They keep some things secret ("You hurt my feelings by saying that.") or expect people to pick up implications ("Obviously, if someone so incompetent is getting a promotion, she's banging the boss."). If someone is telling another character about a problem, they will likely expect the other to pick up implications or deduce aspects. Expect your reader to do the same. Not too much. Being too cryptic can be frustrating as hell. But, don't fall into the TV Batman mode where you have to explain what happened, what that means and the step by step actions you're going to take to get out of the situation. Act, don't say, if you're going to act anyway.

Dialog is one place you can add "nonessential" writing. What I mean by that is not that you have pages of dialog that don't move the story forward or do anything useful. What I mean is that dialog is a good place to sneak in some humor, for example, even if it isn't essential for moving the story forward. A little lightness and humor can make a book more entertaining and is worthy even as just distraction. Similarly, a little character development or a bit of dialog that foreshadows a character aspect that explains a later action (that might otherwise be hard to comprehend) is time well spent. Your story might survive without it, but, by making it more alive, you can make it better.

Note also that people can comfortably spend time without talking. That speaks, too. Note also that conversations that provide information but don't add interest and character development might be better dealt with by saying, "Between hiccups, she gave him a disjointed account of her adventure. With comforting noises, he wiped her nose with no sign of impatience or confusion despite her digressions into incoherency." I can go through the dialog, but, if my readers already know, I'm not contributing much.

Next, plot.

Read more...

Wasted Potential: Because Character's Not Enough

Here's one of those subtle distinctions that, judging by many books I've read, people frequently miss. Having great character(s) in the world isn't enough alone. In order to use a character to his best potential, he's going to have to interact, not just with his environment, unless you've dropped him by himself on a desert island, but with other characters.

For nearly every story, the relationships and give and take between characters are how the story is pushed forward, how the characters learn and grow, how the characters reveal who they really are, warts and all.

A story with only one character is almost stuck telling not showing because it's how people treat each other, how they speak and act toward one another, what strikes them as funny or touching or infuriating that really shows who characters are. Even who they choose to befriend and why.

Seems obvious, doesn't it? Yet this is something authors frequently miss, throwing character mismatches together and forcing a relationship at odds with their personalities. Which isn't to say you can't have different and diverse people interacting together - far from it. Relationships in real life often flourish between people who vast differencest, but rarely 100% different. And friendly relationships are hardly the only kind you can put in your novel.

But the relationships have to be believable just like your characters have to be. Two best friends who never do anything but argue and impede each other (particularly if one is destructive to the other's personality) are not compelling or healthy. Two siblings who never argue are equally suspect. Disagreements, misunderstandings, hurt feelings, anger, all can be part of a healthy relationship, but to be really healthy it needs some real understanding, some support, some trust, some kindness, some compromise, perhaps some humor and some self-sacrifice.

In order to make a healthy relationship work for the story, to bring out the most of the characters (and, by extension, the the idea) there should be both connection and tension in key relationships. This allows growth and exposition painlessly for the reader. Perhaps the main idea provides the tension between them, a racial difference or economic divide. Maybe the idea is a great terror that provides the impetus to bind them together as they have to work on each others strengths against whatever "them" is in the story.

In order to do that effectively, you can't just say they're friendly or shoehorn friendly banter that's at odds with their characters. You have to craft characters that work together, that have complimentary strengths and workable differences. An group of people working together needs to be a team in real life with everyone contributing from their strong suits. In a novel, this is also true, whether the team is a pair or a dozen key players (with different goals and personalities) that make the story go.

And, as important as it is between protagonists and friendly side characters, it has to be so between antagonists and protagonists, too. People can hate each other for weak reasons and bad reasons and misunderstandings, but, in the novel, it's best that the reason plausible and make some sort of sense. A weak or poorly motivated villain is actually very dull and can bring a story to a screeching halt. The more justification the villain has, the more one can see his side of things, the more human he becomes, the more interesting, the more nuanced. Even if his original justification has been warped into something completely horrifying, that original motivation and injustice can really bring a story home to a reader. Can make it all the more real.

And, let's face it, making our dreams and imaginings real in someone else's mind, a reader's mind, is what it's all about. Or, at least it is for me.

So, bottom line, characters need to not only be layered and nuanced and realistically believable, they need to be crafted so that they interact effectively. It's both easier and harder than it sounds. But, if you can do it, really do it, you can really do wonders for an idea.

Read more...

Dylan Xavier Chroz In the "Flesh"

I told you about him, but I'm all for you deciding for yourselves. Be warned. There is a preponderance of references here on his overthinking and feelings regarding Tessa. That's because it's central to the story and because depth of feeling does not bring along with it innate knowledge on what to do when something really matters. I personally find that both charming and humorous.

From Chapter 2

Dylan was not the slightest bit melodramatic, even emotional, as a general rule. He didn't see his response to Tessa as romantic or fantastic at all but as a single irrefutable and immutable fact. He loved her and she had changed his world into something worth living.

Chapter 3

Tessa said nothing, but held herself stiffly. She did have a temper. She waited until they were halfway through the school before hissing, "I could have taken care of that myself."

"I haven't the least doubt that you could have nor that watching you kick his rather pansy ass would have afforded anyone of taste no little satisfaction. But I wanted to do it and I was faster," he replied. Not to mention that no one—no one—man-handled Tessa and walked straight for a week. Tessa could have taken him down, but she would have been less inclined to make it painful and humiliating.

"I don't need a bodyguard, Dylan. Seriously. I'm quite capable of taking care of myself. Right now, they'll likely think I kicked him in the balls, not that you hit a pressure point that I know as well as you do." She did know the pressure point and many others. Dylan had made sure of that personally. He also knew, first-hand, how effectively she had learned it since she had tested her knowledge on Dylan—at his own insistence. He sincerely hoped she never used it on him in earnest. At least he hadn't screamed.

"I expect anyone who saw I was there will have no doubt who hurt him. If you are called into the office, as I highly doubt you will be, you need only have them contact me. I'll take full responsibility."

"And you'd do the same if you were halfway across the school. If I get called into the office, I'll take care of it myself, Dylan. I don't need to be insulated from all ugliness. Have you so little faith in me?"

He was genuinely shocked at the notion, so shocked he stopped dead. "No, Tessa. Of course not! Who better than I to know what you're capable of. You're incredible, talented, brilliant, and driven. I know you could have taken care of him and half a dozen like him," he told her, earnestly.

She sighed and grabbed his arm as she so often did, laying her head on his shoulder. "But?" she prompted, tugging him forward.

For Tessa, ever and always, the truth. "But, I wanted to do it." Just like he wanted to protect her, give her every opportunity, and make her happy. Did she need him to? Perhaps not. But he wanted to do it anyway. “I'm not altruistic," he assured her with perfect honesty. "Everything I have ever done has been done to suit myself.”

Chapter 5

His mind dispassionately contemplated hiring a professional to ensure he would be an skilled and careful lover for Tessa. Despite an instinctive antipathy to the idea, he evaluated several positive aspects. He considered proposing it to Tessa until he realized that, if she endorsed the idea, she would likely expect the same type of instruction for the same reasons. His revulsion at that notion was sufficient to make him realize that the idea was very unlikely to find favor. Better not try it.

From Chapter 7

He'd hardly slept. She liked him, perhaps loved him. He hadn't even allowed himself to expect that. After hours of tossing and turning, he'd looked for distraction.

In the interest of furthering his knowledge, he looked to the internet in search of more detailed sexual instruction, and found far far more than he had bargained for. Perhaps such things were of intellectual interest, but they were, across the board, a far cry from what he had envisioned with Tessa.

Feeling a bit disoriented, he cleared registers, cookies and history, shut down his browser, ran a virus scan, and vowed to be far more selective in his terms for any future searches he might contemplate.

Then he thought he should get her something. If they were dating, surely, he could buy her things outright, no? No more passing by a jewelry store or clothing store, frustrated because the perfect item for her beckoned and he had no right to buy it for her. He recalled a set of tanzanite and another of sapphires that would have suited her exceptionally well. And a lovely dress, full length, of deep blood-red silk. She'd need rubies for that.

Perhaps that was too much? Overwhelming? He had to admit he had a tendency to overkill when it came to Tessa. No sense scaring her silly. Perhaps going slow was a good idea in every aspect.

He contemplated an on-line retailer, like Amazon.com, then realized he had absolutely no idea what he should buy her. He could buy her any number of things, but what did she want? Shouldn't each gift mean something, reflect his deep understanding of who she was as a person? If so, why was he stumped on what to buy her? Shouldn't he know?

He was overthinking things again. She didn't care about stuff. He'd ample proof of that. Or prestige. Or travel, or not much. She liked books and learning new things and trying new things, and challenges and him. He'd known that, of course, he'd always known she'd liked him. He'd just had been too afraid to read too much into that, afraid of expecting something from this lively fascinating person he could never earn as he was relatively dull and uninteresting.

That's it! He could make something for her. She made presents for him every birthday, something crafty and clever and perfect in every way. Each one was a work of art and treasured. He just wasn't crafty. Oh, he could probably make something, but it took some time to develop a skill, and special materials. And they frequently took time to create, too, like the crewel work she sewn that hung over his fireplace or the needlepoint on the opposite wall.

For the first time, he regretted his inability to create meaningful poetry or fanciful stories. He could write in rhyme and rhythm, but the facility to make them alive, to touch the heart, that was beyond him. He'd have to think of something else.

They should go on a date. They could head out tomorrow, just the two of them, to spend time alone together . . just like they always did, but, somehow, more romantical.

Perfect.

But where?

In his whole life, his brain had never been this sluggish and unresponsive. Instead of the dozens of destinations it should have provided (which would be nerve-wracking enough), his mind was completely blank.

He almost called Lawrence [his chauffeur] for advice before realizing it was three in the morning.

Read more...

Meet Dylan Chroz (Really, this time)

I said, some time ago, that I was all excited about a new character, one of those uber-bright people that don't seem possible, largely because I identified with him so completely. Yes, I know that still sounds conceited.

Well, I'm still pleased to know him even though I've been too distracted with other things the past week or so to really work with him much since. I will though. I have some time off. I got sidetracked on what I saw were some of the challenges for being "too" smart, but I really want to focus on Dylan because I want you to understand him, even if you don't like him.

I could tell you what everyone else sees: he's brilliant, with a perfect recall (a genius friend of me once explained that everyone has a perfect memory; what they might lack is recall) and an innate logical ability that can address details and big picture simultaneously (not impossible, I do that, too. It's the obvious that often gets me and that's true for Dylan, too). He can instantly size things up and plan out action (think Sherlock Holmes in the recent film) and has the motor skills I lack.

He's also rich and already, at the age of seventeen, enjoys a substantial autonomy, partially because his father does not have his technical abilities (and his grandfather did and used Dylan from an early age) and partially because his personality is forceful. He's good-looking, though he doesn't see himself that way. Too busy.

But that's what everyone sees.

He's been, however, largely isolated from any affection. His mother despised him. His grandfather used him (and despised his father). His father didn't really try to know him until Dylan was nearing his teens. Other than that, his life was filled with fawning or resentful servants and acquaintance, most of which never saw past the obvious.

However, like myself, Dylan is capable of great emotional depth however dispassionate he might appear, depth, in fact, in direct proportion to his intellect. As I am, he's somewhat all or nothing. When he loves, it is absolute.

Enter Tessa. Smart, pugnacious, impulsive, determined, imminently honest and honorable, she is as isolated in her way as he is, except she has the love of family. And an unshakable sense of self, that instantly draws Dylan who had all but stopped thinking of himself as a person, but only as a thing to be used. As he, in turn, saw people around him.

Tessa wants nothing from him, but only demands from herself, including the urge to one-up Dylan. Her unwillingness to take engenders an obsessive need to give. Her regard for herself--and himself--as people, not tools, changes his outlook entirely. (I know some are skeptical this is plausible. I have to believe otherwise; I've lived it.)

At no moment in the book is his unshakable devotion to Tessa in doubt. For the readers, I doubt her love for Dylan is also obvious (though he is slow to acknowledge it - long story). But then, love is only part of it. It's when Tessa is threatened, endangered, that we see both Dylan's strengths and weaknesses in the clearest light, his abilities and his limitations, what makes him human not robot.

And we see that he wasn't necessarily as alone as he thought he was.

Next time, a taste.

Gosh, I hope things work out well for Dylan. I really like him.

Read more...

Having It Easy Ain't Easy Part 2

Last time I talked about some of the reasons why "having it easy" makes having friends difficult. There are more reasons but the others are also tied to what I alluded to was the other issue here: the stunted or off-nominal social/emotional growth often found with a "genius." I'm considering these factors have to do with both.

Dispassion. The same capacity for honest evaluation required to excel at anything—anything!—is frequently tied to a sense of dispassion. Even someone who is passionate about, say, dance, passionate about excelling, has to look at his own performance dispassionately for improvement or he will never be great. Dispassion is great for excellence but sucks for interpersonal relationships. Passion, for the dispassionate, can be confusing and seem perverse. The objectivity built into the genius frequently leaves him unable to cope, not only with the passionate resentment of others, but with extreme emotional responses of any kind.

He may try to counter emotional responses or motives with reason and be genuinely confused when it fails. He may try to understand the emotional responses using logic and decide that all unfathomable emotional responses are, by definition, stupid. I don't think I really have to work too hard to explain why this would not do much to reconcile a genius with his peers.

But it can do more than widen the gap. It can also be self-limiting. Dispassion in some aspects, and a reliance on logic for everything, can severely limit emotional relationships with anyone, or emotional reactions. Dispassionate excellence is only intellectually satisfying. Do it often enough, and it's not even that (Straight A's isn't thrilling if that's all you ever get). Passion adds meaning to life, interest, color, purpose. Having none came make life colorless, bland and unappealing.

People have emotions, even the genius types. If people begin to distrust emotional reactions on principal, they stand to either squelch/revile their own emotions (which makes a fulfilling life just that much harder to attain) or they feel no responsibility for them whatsoever, no handle on control or limiting them. Which means their natural emotional reactions are out of control, unhinged.

Perhaps I could have saved myself from several paragraphs of explanation by just saying dispassion adds distance, whether it's with others or within one's own life.

Expectations. This is a big one. It plays a part in social ostracism—people expect geniuses to be unpopular and behave a certain way, even if it's not true—but it also plays heavily into a child's development. For instance, an intelligent logical child might be expected to excel at math, but, because they can't spatially envision three dimensions, they become stymied by geometry. The censure (both self-inflicted and by teachers/peers/parents) can be far more severe than that for someone "normal" who had the same problem. My husband, like many dyslexics, was very articulate at an early age. When writing began in school, he went a considerable time being told he was lazy, he wasn't trying, that he was unmotivated, when the problem was very specific. Their expectation of his brilliance (which was valid - his IQ is almost off the scale) led them to expect he could do anything language related (which was not valid) and a presumption, if he didn't, that it was willful.

Expectations, even within a field of excellence, can also be unrealistic as children and adults continue to push the bar up, only to find no satisfaction but rather even more egregious demands. Parents planning to live their dreams vicariously through their children are notorious in this aspect. Coincidentally, expectations in a particular field may also be for a particular kind of result, one that may be at odds, particularly for a creative genius. The genius can readily become frustrated at always being asked to provide Y, which he finds limiting, or gets criticized for providing something that doesn't fit neatly into a box, even though that creativity is part and parcel with genius.

One of the most devastating ways expectations can adversely affect a genius is by parents/mentors confusing their smarts with maturity. Parents of a gifted child (and teachers) can often feel emotionally distant (see dispassion) and assume their child really doesn't need nurturing, emotional support, love. Not so. It is quite possible that a gifted child won't know to ask for nurturing and support—how would she know?—or might not even realize she was lonely or lacking because she's never known any different. The parent assumes, because the child might not be demonstrative, that the child needs no demonstrations of care or concern. A parent might even be put off by that perception and make it self-fulfilling.

That same sort of thing, expecting a gifted child to be effectively an adult, is also carried forward in other ways, where a parent expects judgment or adult-level dedication from someone who is still a child. Logic does not take the place of experience in many ways and the emotional challenges a gifted child might have actually makes them less likely to address an emotional or social dilemma effectively, not more. Too often, and we see this with prodigies in music and athletics frequently, the parent expects devotion to the art, judgment, skill, self-control to just be part and parcel of the gift, instead of something that must be developed. And that is frequently not the case.

Ironically, the same people (parents, the occasional teacher) who expect them to have the dedication, work ethic and judgment of an adult are frequently the same people who seem determined to control every aspect of their child's life, dismissing what a child might want (or need) over what's "good for them." It's a conundrum that, even now, I can't wrap my mind around, yet I've seen it played out time and time again. Children, forced to take adult-sized responsibilities and meet adult-sized expectations, but given no autonomy or control over their own destiny. That is one resounding recipe for a screwed-up kid.

All work and no play. When my daughter was born, I had a very disheartening realization. I did not know how to play. I couldn't recall playing (though I had a vivid imagination), not with dolls or games or anything except as an indulgence to my siblings or others. This concerned me because I understood, intellectually, how important play is to the development of children. Fortunately, my second husband is a professional-quality player and helped me learn the basics and provided play for my children. Maybe too much, but that's a different story.

My point is that play is often overlooked while people are "nurturing" genius. And that's bad. Play is a great method of social interaction, where one's talents or brains aren't necessarily a handicap. There are many aspects and types of play that are cooperative rather than competitive. Play is a great way to foster creativity and give the mind a break from constant overuse. Play can be a good place to learn some of those emotional responses in a relatively safe environment, even develop some passions. Play is a good place to learn about other aspects of life, beyond books or one's special bailiwick, hobbies, outlets, pastimes that can help fill an otherwise dreary life. Too much of one thing is pretty darn limiting and sometimes unfulfilling.

Cynicism. One of the real risks to being a genius is becoming cynical. As you become dismissive of the passions and emotional railings of others, you can't help but notice how many people want to use your skills or make you look bad so they can look better. It's very easy, especially if you've had limited emotional connection with others, to ascribe the worst to the motivations of others and/or see the world as collection of users.

It's not just the expectations (which can quickly escalate into the absurd), but also the sense that you are just a tool, with no value other than what you can do. If the people around you are primarily focused on what you are (Genius, Prima Ballerina, Quarterback), it's challenging to see yourself in any other terms or to think that you have any value as an individual. It's not much of a step from that to begin looking at others the same way, as means to an end, as tools, as things. It's dehumanizing. I have actually been called "a machine" on performance evaluations. It sounds like a compliment (in terms of performance) but it's a far cry from being seen as an individual.

Self-reliance. Self-reliance is good, right? Ah, all things in moderation, grasshopper. Learning to depend on yourself rather than others is something all children (not just the gifted ones) should learn to do. Gifted kids are often called upon to do so early (see "Expectations") and more extensively than other children because, in large part, of the expectation of maturity (whether or not they are also being controlled). Combine that with a sense of cynicism (most people just want to use me anyway) and the belief (whether real or perceived) that someone can only accomplish things if he does them himself, and you have a perfectionist control freak.

This has many issues associated with it, not the least of which is an inability to ask for help when needed, whether with a project, or in the larger world. Any failure, even if the task was impossible, is taken as a personal failing and the results can be collapse, despair, suicide, depression, pick one. It is unreasonable that one can always handle whatever is tossed at one, no matter how capable. A bright star on her way to glory at a dizzyingly young age can be completely sidetracked by an unexpected pregnancy. And clueless how to deal with it. A man with everything to live for who has the world in his hand can find it gone in a flash with kid's diagnosis of leukemia. No one of can control every aspect of our lives (God, can you think how boring it would be if we could?), but there are many of us who leap to take responsibility and shoulder burdens that are more than can be born.

Of course, social ostracism can limit the pool of resources one can draw on, but frequently gifted people don't even turn to the people closest to them, determined to figure out a solution alone. And that, my friends, has done a great deal of damage, especially when they fail.

And that's more than enough for today.

Read more...

Having It Easy Ain't Easy Part 1

I told you there were downsides to having it "easy." My first thought is that there are two serious issues. The most obvious one is emotional isolation from other people, which tends to be blamed on either the smarty-pants or the "envious hordes," depending on which group you're in. The other is a potential for a lack of any sort of emotional fulfillment, a stunted emotional growth that can be related to the emotional isolation but also part and parcel of a life that has too few challenges or the wrong kind of challenges.

Note that when I talk about geniuses here, I'm not just talking about people who are book smart (though I do include people who are exceptionally book smart and/or logical - not the same), but also prodigies in music or athletics or a particular academic field, people who make something (if not several somethings) look so easy that it seems they have no troubles at all.

I can't address it all in one post and I also can't seem to get a handle on separating the two. Some of the same factors play a part in both isolation and emotional growth. I won't touch them all and some won't apply and some will to any particular individual. These are the ones I've seen first-hand, factors that increase that isolation and make it hard to fully develop.

Being different. This is the easiest to explain, starts the earliest, lasts the longest. It's also the easiest to overlook because, as people mature, they come up with other rationales to explain why they dislike someone even though being different is really at the core. Smaller children are less reticent about the core differences and words like freak and weirdo are used liberally. But the belief that there is one kind of thinking, one way of doing things that "everyone" should do, is still alive and well even among adults.

Fresh perspectives, new ideas, different ways of doing things, dispassionate evaluation, even genius—all can be readily dismissed along with the people who have them. For children, they're dismissed for no better reason than because they're different. For adults, it's frequently because it "hasn't been tested" or "challenges core values" or "goes against logic" even when the logic challenged is entirely unsound. People like to understand, to know, to feel they have a handle on things. People who don't think the same way, who are not readily comprehended, threaten that and frequently pay the price by being ostracized.

There's also an impact on the genius herself other than ostracism: that sense of no one being like her, no one understanding her viewpoint. It's a very isolating feeling to believe no one in the world sees things like you do. You don't belong anywhere.

Resentment. In this case, resentment is the attitude that it's unfair one person can excel "so easily" when others struggle. Note that this also manifests when dealing with people who succeed through hard work, but it's particularly pronounced when someone excels in a particular challenging field or when someone is academically superior "effortlessly." Busting the curve, making others "look bad"—almost always ascribed to malice—are considered crimes against fellow students, deliberate slaps all because the genius has an unfair advantage. It's difficult to fight because geniuses do have an unfair advantage (someone who understands math instinctively, for instance, does have an unfair advantage over someone who struggles to understand concepts) but the difference is made worse when the system is designed for children to compete against each other.

The problem isn't that it's untrue, at least to an extent. It's that it's no one's fault, either the genius or the kids who feel lessened as a result. Without a convenient target, however, resentful students have no choice but to blame the genius, as if he had anything to do with the advantage other than using it. A genius cannot use his genius to its greatest extent without causing resentment. In fact, once it's been identified, he cannot use it even minimally without resentment. Perhaps at all.

Arrogance. One of the most frequent complaints about genius in any field is arrogance. I won't lie; I suspect most geniuses are arrogant at least in the sense that they're well aware of their capabilities and even their limitations. There are also, any number of truly arrogant geniuses, in the sense that they feel their genius in whatever field proves that they actually are smarter and superior to the insignificant flotsam around them. It may not look like it from the outside, but there is a difference.

Don't get me wrong. Both can be tough to swallow from the outside. People who know what they can do and do it generally look good, even when they have notable limitations, largely because they're aware of them and steer clear of them. False modesty serves no dispassionate purpose (outside of relationships with others) and gets in the way of honest self-evaluation. Even the best of geniuses can be dismissive or intolerant of error or slower efforts (despite the effort that might have been exerted) others make. They shoot down ideas that don't make the cut without compunction. They are slower to be impressed with achievement. Part of that may be that they're just not competing with anyone but themselves; part of that might be dispassion that comes with pure logic—more on that later.

Those inflicted with the latter kind of arrogance, however, give the rest of us a bad name. I can kind of see it especially if you excel in a particular field. One can't expect Mozart to sit comfortably back as someone butchers a piece of music on the harpsichord when he could have played it better at the age of five. It is frequently difficult for prima donnas who are truly gifted to working effectively with those that are not so gifted, without being impatient and rude.

Note, however, that you certainly don't have to be truly gifted to be a prima donna. In fact, in my experience, that kind of attitude is almost inversely proportion to the amount of talent someone has (with some exceptions). If I find someone like this, he is usually either a true genius in some very narrow field who mistakingly thinks that makes him a genius in everything. (Not so!) or she is a person who consider herself a great deal more smart/talented than she actually is. In my experience, people most often jumping to the forefront to trumpet their intelligence are the ones whose intelligence is, at most, moderately high. People who are truly brilliant don't need to tell anyone. Many wish they were better at hiding it.

There are a significant number of geniuses (most of the ones I know) who are well aware of their abilities, yet don't treat people like crap. Part of that is because no one is good at everything. If you're smart enough to see this, you're smart enough to realize others have strengths and weaknesses, too, that they're not lesser, just different. They go out of their way to understand that strengths in those around them and are the types most likely to work well with others.

Sometimes, the arrogance is a direct result of the ostracism, a defense mechanism to defend a sense of self-worth in a critical world. Focusing on what one can do and telling yourself everyone else is jealous may be all one has to avoid a sense of worthlessness. This arrogance/impatience on the part of the genius undoubtedly contributes to their emotional isolation from others, something they do that makes their ostracism more pronounced. It's an ugly cycle made worse by . . .

The perception of arrogance. One of the most frustrating things about being on the genius side of things is that just acting normally is considered an act of arrogance. This goes hand in hand with the resentment described previously. Speaking using complete sentences, good diction and vocabulary becomes a calculated slur on those around one. Performing well on a test, getting a difficult task completed handily, correcting other people's problems, finding problems that didn't exist—just doing a job right can be viewed as an insult to everyone else, everyone who didn't do so.

For folks who are looking for arrogance, there's no distinction made between knowing one's own worth and thinking one's god's gift to the world of whatever. Short of playing dumb or completely hiding one's gifts, you can't win with this sort. They will see arrogance in everything, especially if they are the ones being corrected or overruled. However, even among the more tolerantly minded, the ones who might appreciate the notion that someone is intelligent, there is still a lingering sense of "less" when confronted with someone who sounds superior in some way. If a genius, unwittingly or no, makes someone feel inferior, especially repeatedly, it's only a small step in logic to deduce the effect was intentional.

Defenses. One cannot stress enough how challenging this ostracism can be on a genius, even among others of "his own kind"—the hierarchy is often less forgiving among geniuses and intellectual achievement does not equate to emotional maturity (which I'll go into in a later post). For some, the isolation is completely debilitating and they grow up emotionally crippled, either leading to lifelong psychological issues or overwhelming arrogance bordering on sociopathy. For others, it's just painful, one of the prices of excellence.

Some choose to hide their abilities or distract from them. They become class clowns with witty comebacks and negligent study habits (which may still not protect them from good grades, but might distract). I've seen several very bright boys go down this path.

Another frequent defense mechanism is playing dumb, way dumb, in fact. I'm sad to say, I see girls do this more than anyone, though I hear that it's also common among some minority groups. There's many women who have felt under particularly intense pressure to pretend an ignorance they didn't have or face near complete isolation. I find that ineffably sad, especially as my daughter is one of them. I can't tell you how painful it is for me to see my sharp quick-thinking daughter turn into a trash-talking moron whenever in the company of a "friend," even though I know how painful her isolation was for her her first few years of school. There is always a price and many a girl who spends her life playing dumb eventually discovers its no longer an act, her abilities and knowledge leeched away through misuse.

There's more features, many of which contribute both to isolation and to emotional challenges for geniuses, but I'll leave that for next time

Read more...

Setting the Bar (Renamed, I'll explain why later)

Yes, I'm still busy writing and the end is not in sight (+45K words and counting). But I thought I'd pause to tell you why I've found this particular book so compelling.

I've been leading up to it, I think, for some time. I've skirted around it and flirted with the concept, taken away bits of it and put others in. I've written variations on the theme in almost every book I've worked on (if NOT every one). I wrote a multi-post review of mangas and somehow, I think, missed a key common denominator, one particular type of character that is endemic to my own work: the over-achiever who makes things look easy. There's one in every one of my favorite mangas (save two and they're barely among my favorites). They're in some of my favorite novels by others (Roarke, The Duke of Avon, any member of the House of Korval).

I've always been fascinated by people who did exceptional things as if it were easy, Mozart writing timeless music while still a youth, Baryshnikov who would look graceful falling down a flight of stairs, Feynman, Hughes, by a long list of people who made it look "easy" without getting famous. I've been fascinated not only by their abilities and thought processes, but by what they didn't have and their challenges (but that's another post).

Why?

Because I am one. I never took homework home in four years of high school. I could get it all done in and between class (I walked to/from school and hated carrying the books) [with the exception of writing research papers and I could have done that if I hadn't insisted in topping myself]. I could literally have been anything I wanted, gone into any into any scholastic field: history, English, foreign language, math, science, engineering. I don't joke when I say I'm an engineering physics graduate by accident (I could get a scholarship from both the college of engineering and and the physics department at the same time). Or, at least any field that didn't require motor skills, artistic talent or athleticism.

I don't think like anyone I've ever known, even people I consider equally intelligent. I don't see things the same, don't reach the same conclusions given the same data. I get more done in less time than anyone I've ever met, and I've met a great many productive people. I get, I kid you not, words like "machine" in my performance reviews routinely.

I know some of you are thinking, "Get over yourself, why don't you?" It's not like that. I'm not bragging. There's no merit in inherent logical ability; I didn't earn it. It just happens to be part of who I am like the curly dark hair and the really horrible fingernails made, apparently, of papier-mâché I have. I'm not better than other people. I'm just different.

I don't do everything better than other people. In fact, there's any number of things I suck at, like selling anything to anyone or remembering names. But I don't believe in false modesty. Nor do I consider it arrogance to know and say what I can do. If I tell you I can do it, you can take that to the bank. And I know first hand how hard it is for people to understand that having it easy doesn't actually make it easy. All my life I've heard "Well, everything's so easy for you," as if really was. It's surprisingly difficult, having "everything easy." There's always a price (but that's another post).

That's why I'm so excited about Dylan Chroz. I've never had a character that reflected so completely the way I think, the way I feel, the world as I've seen it. Oh, he's different than I am in many ways, better in many ways, backwards in others. I've loved writing him and that's why this has been so exciting for me.

Or, like many things, maybe that's just me.

Update 12/4/2010: I read this and it scares me a little. I can feel how this sounds, so off-putting when my intent is anything but. But I don't know how to say it more effectively. Will I alienate people rather than reach them on how it is to be me? As always, language is too limiting. I wish I could put a portal in my forehead so I could pass what I mean along to people in a way they could understand. (I've actually written one in one of my incomplete novels).

Or would my unusual thought processes thwart that, too?

Read more...

Environment vs. Innate Personality

My sister, Shakespeare, was talking the other day about motivation. I've discussed in terms of characters before a few times.

But my mind is a festering pool of associative logic and it got me thinking on another philosophical question that frequently comes up - what has the greatest influence on a character, environment or innate personality?

It's a philosophically big question and there's no "right" answer (in part, in my opinion, because both are factors but I get ahead of myself). But I have my own opinions.

In my own opinion, and in general, innate personality is the key element, not because environment isn't important but because personality determines how an individual responds to a particular environment. An environment that can break one person can make another stronger. An abused child can grow up to abuse other children or can grow up to become a social worker and protect other children.

You might think this question isn't important for a writing blog, but I think it is for a writer. When you have a character, he or she is at least partially developed already. You should understand both the environment and the innate traits that made him or her as they are now (and hopefully that combination makes sense) whether you pass that along to the reader or not. But you should understand why they are the way they are. I have several fairly abrasive characters. In each case, I understand why they are distrustful or caustic or argumentative (and usually provide enough background that the reader can understand even if it doesn't make them like a character per se).

If I don't understand them understand how they got how they are, how can I get them to grow as they work their way through the environment and plot I've devised for them?

Read more...

What Moves You

One of the key elements of a novel or story, for both plot and characters, is motivation. Too frequently, in my opinion, a writer will pile actions on top of each other in order to make a plot without thinking through motivations. Instead, in order to meet the goals and plans intended by the writer, character Y has to do action T here, and the fact that there's no compelling reason for character Y to do so is glossed over in the interest of getting all the good stuff the writer intends.

Good authors do it (once in a while). Bad authors do it. A lot. Constantly.

Don't.

No matter how cool your plot is to you, how precious a twist or turn that's coming, how clever a denouement you have planned, don't cheat to get there. A plot is only as clever and strong as it's weakest link. Skip steps, cut a corner here or there, have a character wander down a path that makes no sense and the plot comes across as contrived, false. At best. At worst, the bottom can fall out of the whole thing.

That doesn't mean it has to be logical. People do illogical or stupid or perverse things all the time. But it has to fit. That's good and bad. The cool thing about writing is that you can make as much or as little of the fictional world as you want. It's wide open. Limitless. The downside is, once you've built your world, you're bound by it. The rules need to be consistent, make sense within their own framework. That means almost any action can make sense if you've set it up so the actions fits. Having your protagonist slug a man in the mouth unprovoked requires a reason, a provocation (unless, say, they're brothers). There are any number of good ones, but you need to have a plausible reason for it, one that the reader can identify with, at some point in the story. But even perfect reasonably actions for a regular person may make no sense depending on how you built your character. The actions need to fit or the characterization gets muddy.

If not, the real damage is done to the characters. Nothing, in my opinion, kills a character, particularly a strong or personable one, like forcing them to do something that doesn't jibe with who they are. Like with the plot, you can have a character do almost anything, kill, maim, kick puppies - as long as it fits with the character or there's a rationale that makes sense for that character in that world in that situation. You start pushing your character in a direction that is hard to understand or seems at odds with who they are, you can lose a reader's interest, in the situation, in the plot, even in the character.

That doesn't mean the motivation always has to be spelled out. Nor that it will make sense to everyone. Sometimes, something will sit wrong with a reader and there's nothing to be done about it. If there are enough that identify with your viewpoint, that's not an issue - there's always someone who won't get it - but if you have to explain it to everyone, you might want to rethink it.

This is one of my pet peeves. For character readers, like myself, it can make or break a book, a character. In some cases, an author.

For me, once I've felt betrayed once too often by an author, I never go back.

Read more...

More than a Telegram

I read Query Shark quite frequently. I've found it invaluable, not only to see what mistakes others are making, but honing my critical skill so I can write my own queries better. I may have mentioned that marketing isn't my strong suit.

Frequently, I often stumble across interesting discussions, not only on what books are effective or interesting or marketable (though that too), but what's appropriate for young adults or what ideas seem, um, twisted. And, every once in a while, there will be a discussion that intrigues me, like the one attached to query #183. There's some technical stuff, and some detailed stuff, some continuity headaches, etc. But what intrigued me is the notion that deeper meanings are taboo. The moderator, Query Shark, said:

I'm also EXTREMELY wary of authors who are trying to make a point or teach a lesson, or illuminate a problem in novels. Story comes first and authors who want to make a point rarely are willing to let the story dominate the points they want to make. Stories with lessons are called parables, not novels.

Others agreed (as I did to a point) and one quoted Samuel Goldwyn (of MGM), "If you've got a message, send a telegram." Now, let's be clear. I agree that the heavy-handed message intended in this query seems clumsy. I agree that people with an axe to grind frequently fill novels and stories (and movies and whatnot) with tons of useless, painful, contrived garbage that turn what might have been a story into an dull flavorless experiences or a mindless miasma of illogical contortions that only appeals to like-minded sanctimonious "intellectuals." Think Oscar winner.

Most people don't pick up a novel to get a sermon. Or, if they do, they're reading different books than I'm reading.

For example, Victor Hugo's great novel (one of 'em anyway), Les Misérables, was interspersed with long tracts on French post-Revolutionary politics and history. Fortunately, he set them apart from the novel and, by just skipping those sections, the novel itself makes a fine read. What's more, every point he's trying to make in those sections (at least in my opinion) is just as clearly elucidated in the story proper - and more effectively.

Why do I say that?

Because it wasn't a dry lesson when it involved Cosette, Valjean and even Javert. Each of the characters grew, living in that history Hugo was trying to portray, changed by it, growing through the hardships and even the successes, learning something. It didn't feel like a sermon, though the lessons were there. It felt like a story and I could appreciate the hardship because I read along with the people, lived alongside them for a while. The problems, issues and history were humanized by making it into an accessible story. That's why it was great.

Make it clunky, subvert the characters or story to press your point, and it because unreal and contrived, undermining the lesson's credibility, precluding it from touching the reader. But make the characters alive, the story all too plausible, believable, real, as say Charles Dickens did, and you send a message that continues to echo generations later. You want to talk about power.

Stories, particularly character stories as I favor, are about growth. Lessons come naturally, fall into place without any browbeating or monologues. Each writer helps shape each character into what they want them to become, provides the world, which can be harsher than today or more enlightened, and uses that circumstance to highlight all kinds of thoughts pertinent to people in today's environment. No matter how far-fetched the notions, it can be accessible, characters can suck people in and make them identify with different viewpoints, aspects, prejudices, cultures. If we, as writers, can't get readers to identify with our characters, the stories wouldn't work anyway.

But it should be natural, unforced, a quiet side effect of telling a compelling story about interesting characters. Even fluff fiction has aspects of this, depending on what direction you want your characters to grow. One reason I read only a couple of romance authors is because I hate the ever prevalent rapist-as-the-hero trend. Harmless tripe, one might say. Well, I think anything you read has the potential to influence you, make you think the world is as it's shown. And, in my view, that's not harmless.

I read and write characters living the way I'd like to think I'd live if I were in that situation. Honest, caring, generous, forgiving, tolerant. Funny. Imperfect. When I write characters with those characteristics I admire, I'm instilling a deeper meaning, even in my least serious work.

I don't think any novel serves a higher purpose by battering the reader with obvious homilies and preaching. A good book, should, at most, makes it an "a-ha" moment as a reader thinks, "I never thought about it that way." Preferably after the fact. And, at best, the reader looks out at the world differently than they did before without even necessarily knowing why.

At least, that's what I think.

Read more...

A Likely Story

After giving you all "permission" to write stories, plot, scenarios and characters that seem implausible, unlikely, even fantastic, what more is there to say? I've given you carte blanche, no?

No.

I truly feel that the sky's no limit when it comes to characters, plots, settings, and stories, but - and it's a big but - you have to sell it as believable and live with the consequences. That's really two completely separate things and may mean this is in two segments. And I should probably explain it more.

Selling the implausible. We all know I hate marketing, but I love story-telling and this is part of it. And there are multiple ways to take a fantastic idea and make it work.

Everyone buys it. One method to impart plausibility is to make it a natural part of the world you build. If everyone takes shapeshifters or faith healers as part of the normal populace, it's easier for your audience to do so as well. An excellent example of this is Edwards Scissorhands which involved a highly implausible scenario and building characters and stories upon it. It worked because everyone in the movie took the scenario at face value and they ran with it. This is a pretty common method in fantasy and science fiction.

Build a plausible explanation. Something can seem impossible but turn plausible if the steps leading to it make sense: societies that work differently than ours, different biologies, different technologies, a character so capable you can believe he/she can do anything. Want an eleven year old starship captain? You'd better make him a prodigy, brilliant and mature beyond his years (and an explanation for that is useful too - did he raise himself and/or others? Trained as a pilot since birth? Have exceptional parents? Do people mature early or are children considered adult earlier? Do years last longer?)

It has to make sense. Not in our reality, but in the one you make. If, to get there, protagonists have to do stupid or nonsensical things, or rules are made and then unmade or the events behind it are so contrived and convoluted as to be ridiculous, you haven't built it right. I'm not saying each action has to make sense, but each thread, as part of the whole tapestry must (or it probably doesn't belong).

Make the story/characters so compelling that people forgive the details. This has been done by newbies and experts alike. It's frequently used to make hackneyed storylines (like romances) palatable despite being done a jillion times (and still loved by many). The problem with this method is that (a) for everyone who does this successfully, there dozens who don't pull it off and (b) you will always alienate a certain group of readers automatically by doing this. The Twilight series is a good example of this. For those caught up in the characters (as I was), the details are forgiven even though a (sizable) number of them make no sense. For purists, even saying "sparkly vampire" is enough to have them beat you up. Twilight et. al. made gobs of money, but there is a huge faction of haters who have never even read it. And, as I said, there are dozens of books that tried similar things that fell flat. Making compelling stories/characters with a story riddled with errors or poorly thought out details is HARD and falls flat more often than it succeeds. It's not a path I recommend.

As for part two, living with the consequences, I'll save that for the next post.

Read more...

The Dark Side

There's a great deal of talk going on this week (which is ironically Banned Book Week) about someone calling for a ban of the book Speak by Laurie Halse Anderson. Speak is a YA book about a teenager who is raped and feels unable to speak of it. Someone wants it banned from school libraries (on the basis of it being "soft pornography"). Blech! Anyone who's read my blog for some time knows how I feel on this subject or should. Not that the subject isn't offensive - it is - but it's offensive because it happens, because society has not yet managed to protect people from this kind of crime. And because society actually furthers it by encouraging silence. I personally think it says a great deal about the perversion of anyone who confuses a rape scene with sexual titillation (as I have mentioned about certain "romance" novels before). Obviously, I think banning this book is the last thing a school should do (especially in the name of Christianity - isn't that how the Catholic Priests who abused children got away with it for so damn long?)

But that's not what I'm here to write about (though there are some great blog posts out there talking about it, including this one by Janet Reid. Do a search if you're interested).

What I'm here to talk about is writing about the dark side. My husband hates it when I do something horrible to one of my characters, rape them, imprison them, have them lose someone close. He hates those scenes and still doesn't really understand why they are in so many of my novels.

But I have a reason. Part of it is because bad things happen. Part of it is because fantasy and science fiction allow for societal commentary - taking an existing condition (either from now or the past) and highlighting it (fearmongering, bigotry, sexism, child abuse, apathy, etc). The side effect of that is that the results, the impacts, have to be clear, to hit home. Taking a sympathetic character through the effects of an issue is a great way to illustrate the ills. But, more than that, having a good character survive and overcome those issues, those horrible events, sends a message, a message of hope to people who might have suffered something similar.

I don't think people readily identify with people who have no problems. I also don't think problems get solved if you pretend they don't exist or describe them euphemistically.

And it does make for more interesting characters. Which, in my opinion, is what I aim for.

Read more...

Fun with Dialog

Nathan Bransford wrote a very fine post on the elements of good dialog and I encourage everyone to read it. As a dialog aficionado, I can fully endorse all of his main points. In fact, I was quite pleased - I feel I write dialog like that (though, of course, I could be deluded.)

The one place I differ with Mr. Bransford (and many others) is in the use of verbs more descriptive than "said" or other descriptive phrases. I always have. I've been hearing this "rule" for some time, but I just won't do it.

The "no-saidism" camp's position is that people don't read so-and-so said anyway so putting something else in the dialog tag doesn't buy anything. What's more, it can be disruptive if you overdo it. I absolutely agree with the last part of this (and personally suspect that's the real reason why this "rule" was instituted - more about that later).

Yet I am not of this camp. There are a number of reasons for this.

One is that I DO read the saids. I note when the tags use said or use something else, andI have (frequently) become bored or found the dialog go stale because all that's going on is talking. And I should warn the unwary that I'm a very dialog heavy girl.

Another is that I learned to write by studying the authors I liked best. And, as I have discovered about a number of "rules" many consider sacred, those authors tend to use language descriptively to support the actual dialog, much like I try to do myself. Sometimes creative use of "saidisms" not only adds color and drama, but also humor and charm. Georgette Heyer's clever use of "saidisms" provide some of her most memorable and hilarious moments.

In my opinion, dialog needs something besides the words themselves. Oh, I know, the dialog itself should do all the talking except . . . in real life, it doesn't. In real life, body language is a bigger part of communication than the words are (as my non-talking son proves daily). That's why plays aren't performed by actors standing in place on a stage, speaking monotonically. Except, with a book, we have to replace the actors, the movement, the inflection, the nuances with words. If we forgo: shouted/muttered/breathed/demanded/scoffed/snarled/moaned/gasped/hissed/bellowed/mused/chuckled/whispered/shrieked/tittered/etc. you have to express all that another way, probably using far more words. Or you can skip it and all those nuances, those distinctions will be lost.

So, if it's so good, why is there such a movement against it?

Well, because, if done clumsily, it's extremely distracting. Even the best actual dialog can get clunky and bogged down if not belied with descriptors that are nearly right but not quite. Or worse, so dramatic and overblown that they become laughable even when they shouldn't be.

Know you're language, know your nuances, don't get carried away . . . otherwise you might just want to stick with said after all.

Read more...

More on "Greatness"

Yes, this is another topic I've discussed before but my good friend, The Mother, pointed out a pertinent article so I had to jump in with it. In this case, the article is all about six great novels that were originally hated. Now, I discussed earlier how hard it was to determine what is/was great when something first comes out. This article brings that view into focus.

What amazed me, however, is that I literally didn't like a one of them. Now, I know people who like one or the other of them, so I'm not saying they're not great. I'm saying they didn't speak to me (The best thing that ever happened to Tolkien, in my opinion, was Peter Jackson, but that's just my opinion). but that sparked a few other trains of thought. One of which falls from my much earlier assertion that "classic" is largely determined by time. But, it occurs to me not every book survives through time because it touches people even today, that is says something timeless.

Some books are classics largely because they mark changes in the written word, set precedents, demonstrate key qualities in the written word, or even effect social change. Beowulf, for example, is unlikely to speak to the average student. What makes it worth teaching in school, (which is probably why it is still in print) is that it is one of the earliest examples of a story documented in English or a form of it. Chaucer also set a precedent, and though I can intellectually get into what makes it worth examining, it doesn't touch me.

Some books or stories are firsts in some arena or another. Some make tremendous use of language, set a new trend, typify a movement, or changed the kind of characters we, the readers, would accept. Some challenged social mores or prejudices. Some brought social disgraces to the light of day.

Now let me be clear. There are many classics taught in school that can still touch today's audiences, that are timeless, even if they do one or more of the things that I alluded to in the previous two paragraphs. Poe, for instance, comes to mind. Or Washing Irving. Or Shakespeare. But there are, in my opinion, some works that probably would have wandered off into obscurity if they hadn't demonstrated some teachable thing or another.

Having said that, there are a number of classics that don't disappear because, generation after generation, people find themselves compelled by the original works, even though they don't do any of the things that would make them key elements in academia. They have stories or flights of imagination or characters that speak to people generation after generation, even if the original audience thought little of them, even if the writing will never be "classic". Even if they're full of flaws.

Wuthering Heights comes to mind. I'd hate to have to teach the novel. It's full of unlikable characters, less than stellar writing and improbable action. I read it a dozen times growing up and I have it on my ereader so I can read it again when ever I want because, though the characters are unlikeable, they are compelling. The book is up to its eyeballs in passion and emotion and, if you get caught up in it, it can wring you out.

A dozen other examples come to mind like Jane Austen or H. G. Wells or Edgar Rice Burroughs or Arthur Conan Doyle or Collette Or Dorothy Sayers or, yes, Georgette Heyer.. Stories and works where characters touch us, or our imagination takes flight or we see things in different ways. Sometimes we're amused. Sometimes we're touched. Sometimes, our minds are intrigued and forced to think about things differently. Different fans of the same book can often find different reasons for being compelled.

Frequently, these are the books we return to over and over again. Interestingly enough, these are also the books that are least likely to die, even if curriculums change or better examples come into place. Why? Because they are introduced to the next generations not by teachers as books required for school, but by people who love them as the reasons they love to read.

In my opinion.

Read more...