Square Peg in a Round Hole

A few weeks ago, again, I got smacked (again) via FB with the mantra that "a writer writes every day, sits at a desk, pounds it out no matter how hard it hurts or they're lazy and/or liars" screed. Inspiration? Who needs it! Muses? Folly! Writer's block? Sheer laziness! Excuses! Horse manure! Treat it like a job, write even if it's awful or you're not really a writer. You can always fix it in editing and the very act of writing will inspire your writing. (I'm paraphrasing)

That seemed to inspire a few more posts over the next few days of the same theme (I hang with a lot of writers).

I don't write that way. No, I can't write that way. If I sit and force myself to write crap, not only will have such odoriferous crap that can be saved only by blow-torching my computer, my back brain (which does all my best creative writing) will go on vacation for months to teach me a lesson. I know. I've tried. My OCD will tell me I suck as a writer and can't move one step further until I fix (or torch) said writing. My extremely overcrowded list of priorities will go, "You have things that need to be done that are more important than the garbage you're generating." Most importantly, I will hate writing, and hate what I'm writing.

Now, let me stop and say, that this method genuinely works for some people, even some great literary artists. More power to them. More power to whatever method works for you, whether it's locking yourself on a beanbag chair with a tablet computer and a thermos of coffee in your closet to get away from distractions or sitting in your neighborhood cafe with a spiral notebook.

But it doesn't work for me. And I love writing. I write because I love it, knowing it will never make me rich, but I take the thousands of hours I squeeze from my overbooked schedule and devote it to writing because I love writing and love the end result of all that time and sweat and tears. I'm not willing to hate it so I can be a "real" writer. Thanks.

That's aside from the fact that, like most writers, I have a day job. And a family. And things that have to get done that aren't writing related, so I write when I can and, at least in my case, when I'm inspired because that means I'm carving out time in my busy schedule doing something that makes me happy and excited. That will give me a product I love. I will not apologize for it.

I have had dry spells and likely will again, often in times of considerable stress or when overwhelmed in my non-writing world. I have fought my way back every time not because I'm a "professional" but because I love writing.

So, I won't apologize and don't expect anyone to apologize for whatever method works for them. Because, and I feel this strongly, the real criteria to be a "real writer" is your product. And I don't care if you wrote your masterpiece dangling upside down from the ceiling in Grand Central Station or write only for three hours a month under the light of the full moon. No one who produces good writing is anything less than a "real" writer.

In fact, I find pushing to find one's voice to be better advice (though I have one and managed to do everything noted here on my own when I was a kid without a particular plan). Better advice for me, I should say because we are not all the same. The uniqueness of our experiences is why writing is so diverse. Why in the world would we think writers should all be the same but somehow produce unique products?

And (reminding folks that, if the "every day at the desk" method works for you, DO IT), this notion that we have to produce product, so much daily, like a craftsman, should not negate the crazy unpredictable flurry of insane activity of the occasional artist. I absolutely agree that craftsman tend to be paid better and more consistently. But we remember the artists centuries later.

One last note. Many of us labeled as "lazy" are working in non-visible ways. And it shows in our end products. Much like this.

Read more...

Editor Horror stories or how NOT to critique someone else's work

I've said before and I'll say again that you've got to be able to take criticism to be a writer unless you want to leave your work in a (virtual or otherwise) drawer forever. You're never going to write something that everyone loves. However, if you're beta reading/critiquing or professionally editing someone else' work, there are certain things you just shouldn't do. Top of the list should be patronizing.

I've been writing a long time. I was asked to join a group and contribute to an anthology. Sent in a story and had it accepted (won't say which one). A month later, I get my "edited" story with a snarky comment to fix it because it's "all over the place." When I opened it up, one of three editors had almost blanket commented every line in the thing. Among the critiques:

"Exposition" - that's the whole line. Because one can't have so much as a paragraph of exposition in a short story set on a totally different world? Over-exposition, where you do nothing but tell what people think and feel and who they are and never show anything or going on for pages on the history of this and that--obviously too much for a short story and probably a novel. But that's not what we were talking about here.

And then this one: THESAURUS ABUSE! Please, please, please, do yourself a favor and read the dictionary entries on words that I point out thesaurus abuse. Some words are interchangeable and make sense, while others don't. This was over the use of "fret" in a situation where it was meant to discuss someone being vexed, which happens to be the second definition you can find in the dictionary my editor should have picked up. Now, I HATE thesaurus abuse where someone clearly picked up a thesaurus and used a word in a context where it doesn't actually fit or is redundant: "verdant green grass" or a friend "ogling his friend in astonishment" - verdant MEANS green and ogling has a very specific connotation. But I probably haven't used a thesaurus but five times in as many years. So, to be called out for it, especially when the editor is WRONG, is more than infuriating. Other words called out as thesaurus abuse included "fiction," "quit," and "forced affection." The latter is indeed a clumsy term but intended to describe the plight of unwilling prostitutes. Her suggested alternate of "some 'fun'" is NOT the same.

Here's another gem: "thesaurus abuse here. yes, technically it works, but really you're using a 50 dollar word when the 25 cent words would do better." Except that isn't necessarily so. Using precise and evocative language adds texture to prose, helps us define things more clearly, make some parts more specific to a particular character. I can use walk, but tripping, marching, stumbling, trudging all add additional information that walk alone doesn't have and, by using them, I don't have to explain it. I get visuals that walk doesn't have. Sometimes walk is enough. Sometimes it isn't. An editor should know enough extensive vocabulary to know the difference.

And this charmer: "I feel Lofar is supposed to be arrogant, and this is a good chance to show that off, but it's just not jiving well with the rest of his characterization. He's not quite two-dimensional, he's what I call 2.5 dimensional. He has depth... but it's not readily apparent." Y'all are free to provide suggestions as to what a character having 2.5 dimensions is like.

The point isn't that she didn't have anything useful to say. Several of her suggestions were perfectly reasonable changes I'd have no trouble making. But, as in writing, how you say it matters. There are people who critique and edit who use that position to bully and patronize. Speak in absolutes, inflict one's own idea of what's ideal on a writer with a different style. None of that is good.

I'm pretty resilient and I have a good set of self-assurance when it comes to my writing, so I was mostly hacked off at the tone and HER mistakes that she tried to treat as mine (and believe me, you don't want to get patronizing if you're not actually correct). Imagine if I had been a writer just starting out or one that is still very self-conscious (and this anthology was geared to "support" emerging authors) I could readily be crushed or, even worse, feel the urge to cut all my own personality out of my writing in favor of someone else. I don't think I need to tell you how unlikely that is to lead to a good result.
Critiquing and editing are positions of power. Abusing that power gives people who are really helpful, even critically necessary a bad name. And it makes you look hateful and/or stupid. Not a good way to further a career. 

But more than that, this is a writer's work, not yours. You don't get to shape it into your vision, but only help them realize her own. By all means point out problems, even note things you (personally) don't like, but don't confuse that with thinking you are the only arbiter of taste that exists. It has his or her name it; he or she must decide. 

It could lead to responses like my first knee jerk response:

I'm out. Hell no. I will not be accused MULTIPLE times of thesaurus abuse (which is my pet peeve and does NOT mean using descriptive but exact language but rather means looking up similar terms and using words that have subtle meanings at odds with their context or that are redundant). If I had called for running over the verdant green grass or had a friend ogle his buddy in astonishment, such an accusation would fit. Using a precise word that means exactly what I want (as opposed to the alternates you handed me) does not suit me at all. And I don't need to be in your anthology. I have withstood and grown from much more useful criticism than you have to offer; I will not be crushed. I can only marvel at the damage you are inflicting on those more sensitive and not yet self-assured where writing is concerned.

I did not write a story for a sixth grade primer, more's the pity, and my use of language is hardly extraordinary. Or out of keeping with my speaking vocabulary, both of which are the result of years of reading great books. Given that I still have to look up about every tenth word Poe wrote. I suppose you'd tell him not to quit his day job.

But I'm not going to have my story included in a collection where one of the editor's chief complaints is that we didn't dumb down the language enough to suit her.

I'm out. I have no trouble, actually, placing my stories in other anthologies and will find a home for this where, hopefully, they won't be interested it in simplifying the charm out of it.

I didn't send it because I'm a professional, but I did remove my story from the anthology and, believe me, that's just as bad.

Also, as an FYI, if you're looking to get started as a professional editor, spamming prospective clients via PM every few days is a good way to get yourself blocked.

Read more...

Interview on Web radio!

Save the date for tomorrow: Wednesday, June 28, at 4-6 pm EST, I'll be on web radio with a host Dellani Oakes (an author) and two other authors, Alfred Jendrasik and Jerry Pociask.

We'll be talking about books and reading excerpts and talking about how we got into what we love to do, write books.

Check it out! (And, if you can't make it, you can always listen to it later.)

Red River Radio

Read more...

Traders Village Houston Comicon Day 1

Traders VIllage Houston Comicon Day 1 rundown for Stephanie Barr for those that might be interested (and also callouts for those who deserve some credit).

First, to Veronica Smith who brought it to my attention and was great to meet in person.

Second to Chuck Larlham, who not only gave the posterboard idea but also the quote that caught many people's attention (since it's snarky). Many people read it, stopped, then came closer. Of those that approached and engaged, about half became sales. One interesting aspect is that many of the sales came about as husbands walked by reading, while their wives were talking to children or whatever, then stopped them and pointed me out. 3/4 of those became sales. Also, a shout out to Author Gibson who gave me the idea of the "Why not to buy my books" which were on my poster and got a few laughs.

Then a really big shout out to my fantastic cover designers, Loraine Van Tonder and Brendan Smith. There was no cover that wasn't someone's favorite and didn't get complimented and probably a third to half my sales included the term: "This one caught my eye."

Also, another shout out to Debbie Manber Kupfer for the idea of the bookmarks. People were excited to take them (everyone who engaged) and many were interested in the ebooks, so I'll likely sneak a few more than way.

I was expecting to sell five books (if I was lucky) for the whole comicon and was hoping for ten.

One the first day of the comicon, I sold nineteen books with Curse of the Jenri being the most popular by 1 (six sold) and every title sold at least two.

Sorry if this seems braggidocious, BUT, I have sold more books the past three months by a factor of TEN than in the three years before where six books were available (not all for three years, but you understand). It's because I stumbled into TDR Publishing and the group and met so many supportive, encouraging, thoughtful, kind people all over facebook and my life who have supported me in this endeavor. Not one person I know has treated my writing as a waste of time. 

Thank you all so much. Just had to say it.

 

And, hey, if I SAW you at the comicon, feel free to wave and say, "Hi!" It was great to meet you.

Read more...

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...

Reasons NOT to Read My Books

So, I'm at this SF and Fantasy virtual Faire today (lots of fun and I'll be hosting an hour tomorrow [3/16/2017], 11:30am CST) and Author Gibson pulls up a blog post where he has a placard of reasons not to read his book. It's brilliant. It's so brilliant I immediately by his book (sold me when it said it had math and science in it). There are three other books with different authors that did the same thing (already had two of those books or I'd been tempted to buy more and I'll probably get the third one for completeness).

I am not only the sort of person who would shamelessly steal this idea and make up placards for every freaking one of my books, I'd brag about doing it (and will tomorrow at the faire). And here now. But showing is so much better than telling, don't you know...

 

 

 

Read more...

It's All About the Story

I love writing. I might have mentioned that a time or two along the way.

But, much more than that, I love telling stories. I love imagining situations that demonstrate points I want to make, imagining characters that people can understand, can feel for and with, and can identify with, and having them make mistakes and smart moves, learn and grow.

If you ever have a one-on-one conversation with me (it could happen), you'll realize that I'm always tossing out anecdotes, either of things that happened to me, things that happened to people I know, or situations I concocted to make the point I'm trying to make. Because, hey, I love telling stories.

I have a good reputation for communicating with people and perhaps that story telling is part of it, according to this article ("The Science of Storytelling: Why Telling a Story Is the Most Effective Way to Activate Our Brains") that talks about studies that scientifically demonstrate what I've always instinctively known.

In the article, they delve into the physical reasons of why, the genetic usefulness of the story, but I, personally (and with no science backing) think it's easy to explain.

The intent of a story is to allow you to live something vicariously. I don't have to have a child out of wedlock to feel sympathy and understanding for someone in that plight. It is possible for a very sympathetic person to feel that way with a bullet point, but a story, were we're put in her shoes, where we come to terms with parents that disown us, with a workplace world that certainly doesn't want us, with societal norms that make us into monsters, tell us we can't abort the children that will change (possibly disastrously) our futures, but then treat us as pariahs indefinitely for doing so. Juno is an excellent example of a story that doesn't preach, but tells us a whole host of important truths.

Stories, well-told stories, make abstract notions alive, where we can taste the bitter bile of despair or the frothy sweetness of "innocent love," we can itch with the sweat of determination and futility and feel the totally badass thrill of slicing through the enemies that threaten us. We have the opportunities to see things from perspectives we never knew or find comfort in relationships with loved ones, with pets, with friends long gone, relived through someone else's similar story.

That emotional response, in my opinion, comes from it becoming real for you, hearing the various vernaculars in James Herriot's stories, feeling the wuthering wind of desolation in Wuthering Heights,  wondering what it really would be like to find you had power you didn't know about like Harry Potter. That's why so many people (including myself) become passionate about characters and worlds that never existed. That's why nonfiction that pulls out examples that demonstrate the impact of  political decisions or historical facts or scientific discoveries are far more compelling than just description, no matter how erudite the language.

Because, stories make people, situations, facts, history, philosophy come alive.

And once something you've read or heard some story, have absorbed and lived that story, it becomes a part of you and created an emotional response in you. Your memory of reading/hearing it because an episode of you living it as if it's your own memory and affects how you see the world, how you see people, what matters to you. Not because the point was hammered over and over -- in fact, don't do that; people don't respond to that unless they're already believers--but because the lessons are part and parcel of the story. I don't have to hammer a point if it comes as part of a story, intrinsic. It helps, of course, if the contrivance for the story is not obvious and--please, please-the writer took the effort to make it entertaining, too. And if you think you can't have both, you really have been indoctrinated.

Few examples leap to mind like M*A*S*H. I loved that show and I know, for a fact, much of the philosophy and mindset "preached" by that show, most often through example, shapes my views on war and people even today. Some of it got a bit heavyhanded toward the end, but, for the most part, they took characters we cared about and made them deal with things that people really shouldn't have to deal with--without forgetting the humor or the humanity.

So, writing for me--storytelling for me--is about communicating, telling you how I see the world, how I want to see it, what I want to strive for built in, part and parcel, with stories with people I hope you can enjoy and situations that stir the imagination, perspectives that might be different than you expected.

And, with luck, you'll have a great time at the same time.

Read more...

So, some actual BLOG news for a change

First, let's talk blog. For those of you hardy souls still following this blog, you're probably wondering why I still have it. Well, it's because I haven't actually given up on it. And I'm going to prove it by getting back in gear and writing blog posts. I like writing blog posts and interacting with those that get on my blog and comment back. So, though it's been languishing for far longer than I like to think about, expect to see me talking about writing again, right here.

And, yeah, that will still involve new releases, but also chatting about works in progress and what I think makes good writing  and the like, just like always. Only, hopefully in the future, not identical to what I did in the past. You know what I mean. I won't be posting daily--got three blogs and a girl's gotta sleep--but I'll try to post something at least weekly.

For those who are still deeply interested in the writing itself, but don't like checking back on blogs and stuff, I'm starting a monthly newsletter. You can sign up on the right.

You'll get notifications of new releases and the single monthly newsletter and that's IT, but only to people who signed up, who actually want to know all that.

The newsletter will include some insight into my writing, why I love it, what I think about it and what I like or don't like, a handy reference for all my existing books and news about forthcoming events, and an original short story so my "fans" can get a first look on my stories. I want it to be fun and hope it will be because, though I hate "marketing" I love interacting with people and sharing things I hope they'll like.

If you're one of the people interested, sign up. I will not be using your email for any other purpose.

First Newsletter will go on next Friday, March 10.

Read more...

The Dark Side of Show Don't Tell

The other day, I was caught by surprise by some feedback on a short story. Not because it was uncomplimentary--that happens, I think, to all writers at some point--but because what she did (and didn't) get out of it was almost exactly the opposite of (a) what I intended and (b) what my other readers of this story have gotten out of it. Now let me be clear, I'm very grateful when anyone not only reads something I've written but takes the time to comment and the more detail the better. I was certainly not shortchanged in that regard. I love hearing an honest response because I want my writing to be the best it can be. That does not mean I have to follow all advice I get (or, technically, any of it) because it's my name on it.  

But, if I want my writing to be more than an exercise in self-gratification, I have to remember that communication involves two interested parties, not just one. I can snicker away all day at my character's banter or antics, but, if I don't communicate them effectively to a reader, I'm snickering alone. Which is fine if that's all I want, but not if I want to actually touch people.

But, by that same token, as a reader, I have some responsibilities, too. I, as a reader, am going to have to see beyond the surface words and look for inferences and inflection, make connections, listen for nuance and tone in conversations and small actions. If I must have every relationship and detail explained, I should stick to reading medicine bottles and skip fiction altogether, because good writing is as much about what the author doesn't overtly say as what she does say.

One of the most pervasive mantras in any writing venue is "Show, don't tell." And it's damn good advice which is why it's ubiquitous. There are several reasons for this, including, (a) it's boring as hell to hear a litany of data instead of seeing things happen and people grow, (b) if you're not careful, the very descriptions you provide on a character's intelligence or kindness doesn't play out in the words and actions of said character, which is a good way to crucify him with a reader, and (c) it's often the difference between someone telling you a story and you living it. Most writers I know strive for having their readers immersed and a part of it.

But, like most things in a subjective media, it's not a binary proposition. Not being subtle enough (telling not showing) is insulting to a perceptive reader. Being too subtle or oblique is frustrating and confusing and insulting in a different way. But readers are not the same. Some readers may pick up on lots of clues and delight in putting them together. Others may prefer only a modicum of subtleties or a certain type and find themselves readily baffled when confronted with a layered story. In part, that drives choosing an audience, but it also means that you as a writer, need to find the right level of subtlety and clarity to convey what you want to convey to your target audience. And there will be misses: some you can fix with a little more/less clarity, some you can't without corrupting what you want to say or losing the bulk of your audience.

Bottom line, though, this whole exercise reminded me that this communication of story, of characters, of action, of what I wanted to say, wasn't just about me, and that I should check once in a while with my target audience to make sure what I was saying was coming through as I intended, because I hate to snicker alone. And I think it's worthwhile to talk about critical reading skills because the same skills that let you pick up on context and subtleties in fiction are useful in the real "nonfiction" world of Main Stream Media where spin is king and emotional manipulation (usually toward outrage) is the name of the game. Being wary of inflammatory subtleties and overt manipulation is useful when trying to get at the kernels of truth, or identifying a source with an agenda. Critical reading, like critical thinking, helps separate the chaff from the wheat, so get those reading glasses on and let's have fun like it's fourth grade and we're doing those silly inane passages for reading comprehension except this one is fun and at higher than a fourth grade level, because, hey, you wouldn't be reading this blog if you were still reading on that level.

Note, since blogger puts everything in italics, the "bolded" bits are actually italics.

"Can you believe that guy, K'Ti?" Darma ranted, her ready rage giving her voice real carrying power. She towered over her petite brown companion, a slim blonde beauty as supple and sharp as her laser blue eyes. "Hemming and hawing and desperate for any excuse to stop us from going out to collect plants in broad daylight when he and his shapeshifting buddies—even his non-shape-shifting buddies—go out hunting every night. Hell, last time he went hunting, he came back with a hole in his ass so big, I had to give him blood half a dozen times so he didn't die. And then—then—he gets this uptight look on his face, and tells me I need to be careful but he'll let us go by ourselves against his better judgement. Let us!

Wouldn't getting a hole in my ass argue how dangerous it is, you crazy girl? Laren fumed, from his hiding place in the tree behind them.

Her companion, K'Ti, in that tight voice she used just before she went after a body with a wooden spoon, said "I noticed. It's not as if you could have been any clearer when he tried to bull his way onto our expedition."

"I know, right? Getting all bossy with me. Damn it, I'm three years older than he is," Darma kicked the underbrush. "You're lucky you have Xander. At least he respected you enough not to try to talk you out of it."

"Xander was only wise enough to lose an argument in a way no one else could hear," K'Ti corrected, her voice grim. K'Ti had a prodigious temper, too, and Laren had been on the receiving end a time or two. Laren felt an edge of respect for his foster brother, Xander, going toe-to-toe with the formidable healer even if only in their minds.

"Oh, right, Xander's a telepath even in his human form," Darma said, with a touch of envy. "Didn't think about that. Must be convenient."

"I think it's cheating. It is much harder to speak forcefully when you can't speak."

Darma laughed at that, ""Shoulda just yelled at him anyway, made him look foolish."

K'Ti sighed. "Or I would have looked so. I've been with him on this same route to gather plants two dozen times without problems. There's no reason to think I would not be safe with you. But, in the end, he did promise not to come unless we called for him."

"Will he do it?"

K'Ti appeared surprised. "Of course he will," she said as if that were almost insulting, then added, "I will know if he doesn't keep to his word. There is no hiding it from me."

Darma laughed again, her temper subsiding as it usually did as quickly as it came. "Empath and a telepath hooking up. No one can escape. Is Xander off the suppressant? He hasn't had a fever in three days. I mean, he can change into a dragon if he needs to, right?"

 So 501 words, no overt action so far, but have we wasted our time or have we learned something?

For instance, who is Darma mad at (name is not required but extra points if you guess it): (a) Father, (b) Head honcho, (c) overprotective boyfriend?

Are these folks, as a whole, normal humans or do they have special abilities. If the latter, can you name some of the abilities possible? Does everyone have the same set of abilities?

Is Laren part of the conversation? If not, what is he doing?

What connection does Xander (referenced but not included here) have to the other characters? What powers do we know he has? Extra credit if you can identify one of K'Ti's capabilities as well.

Whose POV (Point of View) is this story written in?

I tried to put clues to answer all these questions (and more) in here, but, and I can't stress it enough, you're not "wrong" if you answer differently than I intended or you can't answer a question. That just means I need to work a little harder. But isn't it fun to fathom out a story? Or maybe it's just me.

I would LOVE it if people wrote down their responses to this.

Read more...

Why I Break a Lot of Rules

When it comes to writing, there a lot of rules. When to bring the plot to the forefront. What's important early on. Only use "said" not other identifiers. Avoid adverbs. Show don't tell. Don't write in dialect. Use complete sentences. Yada yada yada.

I'm not saying yada yada yada because the rules aren't important; I'm saying it because I don't think the rules are ALL important. So let me make it clear.

It is important to know the rules. For one thing, many of these are fine practices to follow especially (a) if you're just learning your craft and (b) if you are trying to write professionally - i.e. you'll be writing for markets where the editors are looking to see, first off, if you know your craft.

And, although I'm going to explain why I break many of these rules, there's a huge difference between breaking rules because you don't know any better and making a conscious decision to do something different. If you don't know the basics, don't understand how to communicate well, while you're figuring out how to do that and probably before you find your voice, you want to be very cognizant of things that will make you look like an amateur--and will adversely affect your writing.

Because, and I think this is true for most of us, writing is more than talent. Writing requires skills and you develop those skills over time. The rules provide a way to avoid many pitfalls you might otherwise fall into while you make the mistakes and learn from those aspects of writing the rules don't cover, because, that's the other half. Following the rules alone doesn't make you a good writer. Talent is part of it, too. Saying something compelling, descriptive, wrenching, thought-provoking - you don't get there by using the rules and nothing more. The rules are tools you can use to build your great work, but they aren't enough by themselves. And, if you want to know "The Rules," there are literally thousands of books out there with writing rules in them, some the same, others variations on each other and some unique to each author. I'd look for books that seem in keeping with authors you like so you can find a set of rules that work best for what you want to write. I won't recommend any because I literally haven't read one in decades.

I am, you see, a freak. I am self-taught, teaching myself writing by (a) reading both authors I found compelling (and trying to understand why I loved them) and authors I didn't like or even hated (and trying to understand why I hated them so I could avoid doing the same) as well as (b) writing - lots and lots of writing. Writing let me find out what I liked writing, what I liked reading of my own, what did work for me and what didn't. It let me find out what wasn't working for me and what was. Poetry, short stories, novels - each type taught me different things with some things I learned writing poetry spilling over to make my short stories better, more emotionally gripping, more powerful and from my short stories to my novels to make my characterizations more vivid faster and adding drama when required.

From reading and writing, many of the big rules out there I soaked up by osmosis. Others I had pointed out by readers and fellow writers. There may still be some I don't know, but I think I've got a handle on most of them. And, most of them I follow, though there are a few notable ones I don't. And here's why:

Sentence fragments - when I write dialog, you'll see a great many fragments. That's because normal people (other than myself) tend to speak in fragments rather than complete sentences. If all of your characters speak in complete sentences, they'll all sound like English professors and that's not natural. So I don't, though I usually have one character at least that speaks that way (a) because I do (so it's often a protagonist) and (b) differences in syntax, grammar and sentence structure can help differentiate different characters, can make them seem more individual and vivid.

Now, that would be fine if I only did so in dialog but I don't. However, since I tend toward third person POV, I'm often inside someone's head and the tone and phrasing are in keeping with the head I'm in. Also, fragments can be used very effectively for impact and for humor, both things I strive for in my books. Which is why this is most likely to happen in moments of tension or humor or stress.

So, although I prefer generally to write in complete sentences, there are times when I knowingly and deliberately use fragments.


Head-hopping - this is the pet peeve of many an excellent writer and I don't blame them. Now that I'm cognizant of this issue (and I didn't know much about it for years), I can often find it irritating myself. But, yes, I still do it. Here's why.

First, I didn't know about the whole POV third person because I mostly wrote in what I considered third person omniscient which is, apparently, very passé. I have since made an effort to understand who's head I'm in, to control my transitions and, in some cases, keep them from happening. I have at least one book from all one point of view (which is the preferred method) and another where it's almost all limited to two viewpoints and generally has nice clear transitions.

My other three novels, however, are largely ensemble pieces where two viewpoints aren't enough to get the whole story and, while there tends to be a couple viewpoints that get precedence, more are needed, even in close succession. For a purist, it can be pretty wrenching. I tried to limit the viewpoints consciously, but, when it detracted from the story, and there were places where it made things awkward or confusing, I didn't limit myself.

Identifier - He said, she said. If you've written things well, the dialog itself should describe the specifics, the muttering, the yelling, the whispering, the begging, the insisting - it should be clear. Overuse of identifiers (especially severe overuse) can be very distracting and clumsy. Many a newbie writer uses them like candy so flagrantly, they look desperate, though not as desperate as when someone with less than a stellar grasp of language misuses them where the dialog clearly is saying one thing and the identifier (possibly from a ill-fated thesaurus hunt) says something contradictory. So, yeah, this rule has a reason.

I'm not bragging when I say I write pretty good dialog - but I still sometimes (sometimes frequently) use identifiers.Why? Well, a couple of reasons. (a) First, descriptive identifiers weren't always off limits and I read a lot of (1) old stuff and (2) British stuff. And the truth is, the identifiers were often part of the humor, part of the voice of the author and, when the dialog wasn't strong (and some old stuff is pretty stilted), they were used to good effect. There are passages where the identifiers made it much better for me, added to my delight in a passage. It's a potential tool, particularly when you need exposition (to liven up someone's data download) or when the dialog itself isn't exciting because, hey, sometimes exciting dialog doesn't fit the circumstances. I don't throw a tool away unless I have no choice. My point is I've seen them used effectively and I know it can be done.


(b) It can be useful in conveying emotions and reactions economically. If I said "I'm fine," he groaned, I know he's in pain or otherwise stressed. I don't have to explain his face is creased or sweat is beading on his face, that his hands are shaking with pain. Within the context of what I've written, I've conveyed a great deal with that one word that could take me several other sentences to convey otherwise. Same with if I said, "I'm fine," she hissed or "I'm fine," she chuckled. Same words, but I've conveyed more and I don't have to explain it. I can just move on with my story. 


(c) Identifiers can be hilarious. I've both seen and used them to comic effect and they can totally be icing on the cake. They can also be used to reinforce your particular voice. I especially like to use them on throw-away side characters who we don't get to know but provide humor through their antics.

Last and not least on this particular list...

Adverbs, particularly -ly ones (you see what I did there?) - -Ly adverbs are a problem for the same reason that identifiers can be a problem. They can be used lazily when more effective verbs or adjectives could do the job. I can't tell you the number of times I've closed a book myself as redundancy and overly ornate descriptions and piled on adverbs (often poorly chosen) and other descriptors swamped me.  On page one of one recommended book, our hero was riding over the verdant green grass. Since verdant means green that was pretty redundant. Not to mention that, as a general rule, the green is implied with "grass" anyway. But I digress.

Do I still use more than the recommended dose of -ly and other adverbs? Yep and I'm not apologizing. You know why?

Well, I like them and use them for much the same reasons I use diverse identifiers: I've seen it in authors I admire, it's a tool like any other, they can convey things easily and without awkwardness (and I've seen people do some pretty awkward things to avoid them), and they can be indispensable when it comes to humor. One of my favorite authors, who is also one of the funniest I've ever read, used them comically to great advantage. I STILL can't think of the passages where she used them without breaking up and wiping tears of laughter from my eyes. Not saying I'm as skilled as she, but there are times when my particular wording using an -ly adverb tickles me because it reminds me of her, almost like an homage. And when that happens, or when I feel like the wording reflects my writer's voice, my humor or just sounds better (ah, those years as a poet), I'll leave it if it works for me.

Read more...

New Release: Saving Tessa

I just released my personal favorite of my novels (so far) today. You'll be able to find it at the compelling price of $4.99 at your favorite retailer.

Dylan Chroz, high school senior, had a reputation as the unchallenged king of the technical world, a genius with dozens of patents to his name. He also had a reputation for being as cold and calculating as the supercomputers he could design in his sleep.

So he was unprepared when Maxcomm discovered what really mattered to him: the spunky girl at the center of his existence. Or when they stole her away so they could use her against him.

It was a mistake, of course, to make an enemy of Dylan, even if he was hampered by his fear for Tessa. After all, people who threaten Tessa were definitely not going to come out unscathed.

And Maxcom didn't appreciate what those around Dylan will do to help him save Tessa.

But the real mistake they made was thinking Tessa was going to sit quietly by and get used. As if Tessa would stand for that!

That last mistake was really going to cost them

Contains some language and violence. You can find Saving Tessa on Smashwords

In the iTunes store

On Amazon.com

Barnes and Noble

Kobo

Read more...

Ah, L'Amour

Romance.

Something of a dirty word in literary circles, not just because so much of what's published today under the category of "romance" is, well, smut. (Personally, I have a great deal more respect for those that publish graphically described sex under the unabashed title "erotica" but that's a separate point).

And that's a pity, because love, as a theme, has been popular since time immemorial, not just in women's literature but in legends, in mainstream novels and making some inroads in every other genre. I, personally, love romance, which is why I hate most romance novels I've been exposed to my last twenty years.

Why? Well, first there's the caliber of much of the writing. Just because the plot is basically pre-defined with only a few details to provide, doesn't mean everything else should be throwaway. Cardboard characters, substandard writing, implausible connections and plot devices make many of the assembly-line quality romances available as appealing as cleaning the bathroom the day after a major night of binge drinking. Nor is the caliber of such writing improved by use of a thesaurus (please, I'm begging you). If you don't know what the word means, the nuances of a word, don't bloody well use it. When I see someone riding over the "emerald verdant green grass" on the first page, it's the last page I'll be reading.

But the caliber of the writing is only part of the pain, because, as I've explained a few times in the past, what passes for romance tend to be three different things: (a) [least offensive but least interesting] two forgettable people thrown together in implausible circumstances who show no connection whatsoever but somehow end up as a couple, (b) two people who hate each other all the time, but who heat up the sheets like no one's business (a recipe for romantic disaster in my opinion) or (c) a variation on a or b where we "liven things up" by having the "hero" rape the heroine for spurious reasons. I find all of these the opposite of romance, with the last especially unadulterated misogyny, inflicted on women by other women.

It doesn't have to be that way. Georgette Heyer, still called the Queen of Regency Romance though she's been dead for forty years (and her books are still mostly in print, I might add) wrote engaging, historically believable, entertaining, hilarious love stories with characters of surpassing depth (yes, even her stock characters). Love stories because the people the heroes (and heroines) cared about were more important than themselves, were worth sacrifices, were precious and treated as such. Sex, naturally, was not much a part of these romances, in keeping with the times and the care with which our heroes guarded the virtue of their ladies - because that was one sign of respect and adoration. After all, if a girl was ruined, she suffered far more than the ruiner. I have to add that there's a sophistication to these stories, an appeal that's hard to describe but let me just say I've hooked more than one male friend on these books.

More recently, I've discovered Nora Roberts (who also writes under the name of J.D. Robb for some futuristic thrillers) who manages (at least in all the books I've read) to avoid falling into the trap of lifeless characters and hateful or raping protagonists. She's also quite humorous. However, from what I've been exposed to (and I haven't had the stomach the past decade or so to try many new romance authors for this very reason), she is very much the exception and not the rule.

That's how pervasive these attitudes are in our culture, not just men, but also women. So, why bring it up? I read something today that really got my mind thinking, something that surprised me. Now, as most of you who know me know, I tend toward liberal/feministic thinking. Not going to apologize, just a reminder for those of you who somehow missed that. Most of my friends on Facebook tend the same direction.

So, imagine my surprise when someone posts a link to an article about a young woman who chooses to stay celibate until marriage and how difficult this is to communicate with potential dating partners and how difficult it was to maintain a relationship. Among other things, she struggled with having the convey this message early enough in the relationship but not weird out potential partners on the first date. She even dated a very conservative Christian who not only was the women-should-be-seen-and-not-heard type she found hard to stomach, but also put more sexual pressure on her than her other dating partners.

If you're confused why I was surprised, let me explain that I wasn't surprised this was posted. What surprised me were the attitudes of my liberal, anti-rape, pro-feminism friends who described her as a "fundamentally an extremely dishonest, disingenuous and manipulative individual" because she didn't tell guys on the first date. And not just one person or one gender piped in with more along the same lines: that "Physical intimacy is a normal and healthy expectation of romantic dating" or that she should limit her choices to those on a "Christian website" because "she should stop trying to date men that aren't part of her pretty circumscribed social set." She was categorized as a "conservative right-wing Republican" (not sure why that had to be so) and "drama queen." 

Whoa, wait, what? Since when is it wrong for a woman to decide when and to whom she wants to have sex? Or that she has to give her sexual history to guys (on the first date no less)? Or that she has to justify her position in any way? That sounded to me (and still does) like the "expectation" that dating involved sex was somehow an obligation on her part. And that many, otherwise liberal pro-women people considered the onus entirely on her to warn away potential partners from the get-go. My response (which I'll repeat here) is, why shouldn't someone who feels sex is an expectation say it on the first date: "If you don't put out in a reasonable time frame, I'm walking. I'm only interested in dating people willing to be my sexual partner." (I'm sure that would go over well)

Why is the freedom we've all fought for (and I also defend) for women to share their bodies as they choose to (for any reason they want) not apply to women who, hey, don't want to share their bodies with just anyone?

To be honest, I was appalled, not only that this attitude was so pervasive (both men and women: "I think physical intimacy is a near given in romantic dating, otherwise it is a platonic friendship"), but how insulting it was to both men and women.  Men can't be passionate about someone, love someone without sex? Women can't find someone precious and charming, can't love to spend time and do things with someone she isn't copulating with? That argues that the freedom to have sex for pleasure mandates you must or you are somehow an aberration. And, even if that's the prevailing attitude, I think "majority rules" should have no bearing on what an individual wants to do with his or her body. Talk about the opposite of romance!

(What if your partner is parapalegic or otherwise physically incapable? Going to toss him/her to the scrap heap? Very "passionate!" Great love story!)

Now, don't get me wrong. I love sex. I also, however, see it inextricably linked to love. For me. I don't tell anyone else what motivation they have to have, but that's my motivation. I've had two sexual partners (total) who were also my two husbands. That's not a coincidence. I don't regret having sex with either (even the psycho) and I don't regret NOT having sex with all those people I chose not to have sex with. Someday, I'd like to have sex again, but I'd only be interested with someone I cared deeply about, someone who cared about me. For me, if someone told me they'd drop me if I didn't put out, I'd wave goodbye with a smile. I'm worth more than that. 

Here's the thing, guys (and girls), when people talk about removing the rape culture, we don't just mean brute force, we mean coercing girls into thinking they have to have sex to be loved. Girls (or guys, for that matter) pushed into sex before they're ready or for the wrong reasons often live with a crushed sense of self-worth every bit as painful as a rape victim's. And we need to stop pushing it if we want it to get better. 

I'm all for romance, real romance, where people learn to love each other and, when they're ready, when they both want it, finding love culminated in each others arms. 

But that's just my opinion (repeatedly documented in my own books, I might add). I'm open to hearing what you think. Feel free to chime in.

Read more...

Fourth book, third novel coming out September 15

I have another book, Nine Lives, available for preorder that will become available September 15. Right now, you can order it for $2.99 (price will go to $4.99 after it's released). You can preorder it now from Kobo, Barnes and Noble and Apple as well as Smashwords, which has available in all formats including Kindle. (It will be in on Amazon.com sometime on September 15).

That's three books already out, Conjuring Dreams (short stories),  Tarot Queen (adult novel), and  Beast Within (YA novel). 

"Trapped on a planet across the universe from their homeworld, more than a thousand youngsters, teachers and crew must make a new home for themselves in this beautiful and dangerous world. Some, however, are shapechangers, Bete, that many look on as demons, so they have more to fear than their new environment. At the same time, their powers have also saved all the refugees more than once. To protect themselves from the humans that fear or hate them, the Bete have started a separate colony from the rest.

With their little Bete colony going well with his foster brother, the intolerably perfect Xander, in charge, Laren, was feeling a trifle unnecessary, which didn't sit well with his pride. Or his temper. But when his arrogance nearly got himself and his best friend Rem killed, he decided to reign back his anger and deal with things with a little more thought.

He did so just in time because Xander became dangerously ill, hurting his mate, the healer, in his delirium. And, at nearly the same moment, the other colony was overrun with those that feared the Bete as demon-spawn. With an unknown disease in the camp and potential attack from outside, a level head was definitely needed. Who would have guessed that Laren would be the one to provide it?

Who knew this being in charge business was so troublesome?

Sequel to Beast Within. Contains some language and violence."

Unlike Tarot Queen, but like Beast Within, Nine Lives is a SF/Fantasy Adventure YA with an ensemble cast, so it's not as racy, not quite as violent and a bit more teen friendly. But, I do think it's quite interesting for adults as well. I make a point of not dumbing down language but letting context clues expand the vocabulary.

Links for all available books and pre-orderable books wills stay in the left hand column.

Read more...

Beast Within

So, two books all the way out, Conjuring Dreams and Tarot Queen, and now another book available at bargain prices for preorder: Beast Within

Update: Now it's been released, it's still available at the bargain price of $4.99

"When a ship of youthful refugees maroons on a strange and dangerous new planet, Xander had no choice but to take charge of his shapeshifting clan, the Bete, to protect the strange foreign healer, K'Ti, from humans as well as his own suspicious clan. Among humans, shapeshifting and magic were frequently equated with evil. The lives of the Bete and K'Ti would readily be forfeit if certain fanatical factions discovered their gifts.

After Xander convinced the captain to let them be the first to set up camp outside, the healer's extensive magical skills quickly became key to survival. When K'Ti discovered the Bete's shapeshifting abilities, Xander defied his clan to let her live.

To defend themselves, and the humans, from the vicious predators like the man-sized Klixit, of the new planet, the Bete will need every skill, shred of knowledge and capability they possess. Xander will have to weigh the needs of his clan with his trust of humans, the risk from the dangers all around them, and those that lie within his fellow refugees. "

Unlike Tarot Queen, Beast Within is a SF/Fantasy Adventure YA with an ensemble cast, so it's not as racy, not quite as violent and a bit more teen friendly. But, I do think it's quite interesting for adults as well. I make a point of not dumbing down language but letting context clues expand the vocabulary.

Note also that Beast Within is the first of the Bete series. Nine Lives, the second of the series, will come next.

Read more...

Another book available for pre-order!

I know what you're thinking: "I haven't even finished the first one (which was free)." True, but, if you do finish Conjuring Dreams and are jonesing for something else from my talented brain, you're in luck because you can get a deal on the next novel that takes up where the short stories stop.

Update: It's now out and $4.99. 

This one's not free, but you can get a deal on it since you can preorder it for $2.99 - it and will go to $4.99 after it's published on May 15 (which coincidentally is my 25th anniversary as a Rocket Scientist since I started working at Johnson Space Center in May of 1989). This novel is a grown up story, but fun and hopefully thought-provoking.

Announcing Tarot Queen.

After nearly four hundred years as the Tarot Queen, Roxell might still appear young and beautiful on the outside, but inside she was bored and jaded. Reading fortunes and conjuring futures was no substitute for an adventure of her own, a life of her own. Instead, she felt a prisoner, exiled within the confines of her cottage, growing more and more contemptuous of the supplicants who came to ask for her insight. And, for four centuries, not one person had given her heart the slightest romantic flutter . . .
Until Dante stepped in and turned the life she knew upside down. Handsome, intelligent, capable, he was everything she'd ever dreamed up . . . except that a tryst with a succubus had left him a demon and therefore soulless. The cards said he was definitely her destined lover, but Tarot Queens only get one lover and she had no plan to become a demoness.

For love, she abandoned her self-imposed exile and set out with her ardent suitor on a quest to find a solution to their thorny problem. Turns out, Dante's demonic venereal disease was only the tip of the iceberg when it came to their problems and Dante's mysteries. And Roxell was going to have to depend on her wits and her magical talents far more than she'd ever envisioned when they first ventured out.

And she loved (nearly) every minute of it.

Contains some sexual situations (not erotica) and a modicum of violence.

You can preorder at Smashwords and should shortly be able to preorder from a number of distributors.

A note about Smashwords - they distribute to most of the major ebook distributors like Barnes and Noble, Sony, Kobi, Applestore, etc. But, I don't know when they'll show and there's a lag. You can preorder from Smashwords right now in all of those applicable formats. If you're struggling with how to get the downloaded Smashwords files to work with your application or device, you can get insight into how to do it here.

Naturally, no one is required to read my stuff, but, for those of you who might be interested, I wanted you to know it was out there.

Read more...

My first BOOK!

At long last with a self-crafted book cover, I have self-published my first e-book: Conjuring Dreams And it's FREE!

"Magic-wielders, shape-shifters, mermaids, empaths and diviners and even teddy bears and computer programmers wander through 26 stories, written into life for situations thought-provoking, compelling or absurd. It's a collection of diverse stories, from the first one written when Stephanie Barr (then Beck) was13-14 years old to the last ones finished last year. The tales show off not only Stephanie's eclectic imagination but the growth of her story telling as she taught herself to write (in the way she wanted to) through writing. So it's all fiction and totally autobiographical at the same time. "

Smashwords: Conjuring Dreams

Hopefully soon it will also be distributed at Apple, Kobo, Barnes & Noble, etc. Will post links when I have them. There are, however, formats available for most if not all readers/computers already available at the Smashwords link. There's also an interview of me.

I've also put it on Amazon but they wouldn't let me do it for free so it's 99 cents: 

Amazon: Conjuring Dreams

My suggestion is to go ahead and download it for free on Smashwords since they have Kindle format there.

More books (namely novels) are coming so "stay tuned".

Read more...

How I Got Started

In the last post, I noted that short stories were a large portion of my writing history, how I got to where I am (though most of you probably don't really know where I am - I'm hoping to change that).

In reality, the short stories were phase 2 of my self-imposed writing tutelage. I have a huge backlog of poetry from high school and college, but I'm not sure I'll ever publish those. They're early and I was so very very young.

During the course of putting those short stories together, though, I remembered when I first started writing, or, perhaps more importantly, started keeping the writing I was doing rather than just writing it then tossing the poems and haiku I'd written to that point.

Although I've been writing since I was ten or eleven, most of the poetry (what I wrote first) I read over, thought, "Hey, not bad," and threw away. It wasn't until I wrote "A Cold Wind on the Hill" (at thirteen or thereabouts) and showed my father that the situation changed. Although not a fiction lover himself, my father made me promise never to throw any of my writing away again. Even the stuff I should have thrown away (which I didn't include in the book).

It is, at least in part, due to him that I began to document my imaginings and learned to appreciate sharing the stories with an audience. Perhaps because of that, I continued to pursue writing even after I became an engineer and a mother and had days packed with too many other things to do. I still had to tell stories, had to write, had to write down and save what I did write (even when it stunk).   

This was that poem.

                 A Cold Wind on the Hill

            One August morning as nighttime had paled,
            Fighting broke out as the peacetalkers failed
            And the War had begun that no one would win.
            Grieved for His children, He looked on His kin
            And sent down an angel to quiet the din.

            But no one would listen for he had no right
            To sue them for peace when they wanted to fight,
            Till, fin'ly, repulséd, he fled in disgrace,
            Quite sick to the heart for the Master he'd face
            To tell of the end of the earth's human race.

            Yet, though it seemed futile, God, too, had to try
            To keep all those missiles from wounding the sky,
            But man just ignored Him and forced His retreat,
            Weeping with grief for His mankind's defeat,
            And for their blind bloodlust he couldn't unseat.

            So, man set his guns up, his missiles, his bombs
            And sent them all out on one hot August dawn.
            Then cities exploded in huge clouds of dust,
            While millions were killed in this "political must,"
            Whole nations reduced to just heat-blackened crust.

            Now, on a small hill does a lone Figure stand,
            With tears in His eyes and blood on His hands.
            The land all is barren; the grey air is still,
            Which tortures that gentle Soul there on the hill,
            As, for once in His life, God, Himself, feels a chill.

Thanks, Dad. I love you, though you're gone now.

But I didn't yet appreciate that I wanted to write or what I wanted to write. It was later in high school that I realized, what I wanted to do was not just write, but to write fiction, write stories, created entirely from my own mind, rather than just report on what had already happened, or writing about "stuff." I remember fondly when I first realized that what I wanted to do—what I would always want to do—was tell stories. I had an assignment in high school to write an essay about an ordinary object one could find at home. But I couldn't just describe something; I had to tell a story. Even my poetry tended toward long and epic stories. 

The "bones" of that "essay" became my first short story: Charley (and I also wrote a poem version of this). Though prose, it was only a short step from the poetry I'd written up to that point, the use of the sound of language, the emotional manipulation. Of everything I've written, it is still my eldest daughter's favorite.

I love you, Stephanie (yes, that's my eldest daughter's name).

Charley is the story that will kick off my anthology, Creating Dreams.

Read more...