Tag Archives: the editing process

Of Course I’m Right.  I’m the Good Guy

08 Wednesday May 2024

Posted by in Uncategorized, writing

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

“Nobody thinks they’re evil or bad, they think they are doing the right thing”.  Andrew McCarthy, 1962. 

This is a famous quote for writing and storytelling.  It’s been paraphrased and repeated by lots of people, even villains in stories.  I’ve also seen people take lots of exceptions with this quote.  People have gotten very angry with this sentiment.  

It’s a great conversation piece.  Philosophically, it gets the brain juices flowing about the nature of good and evil.  What is the mindset of someone who does evil things, or even what an “evil” thing may be.  I, and really anybody, could go on about this at length.  As philosophically, sociologically, and psychologically speaking this has so many meanings and implications it’s literally still a hot topic for debate.

What I want to talk about today in regards to writing is the antagonist of your story.  What might this mean?  Does this mean that your antagonist is the hero of their story?  That is possible, but it’s only relevant if you’re telling the story from the antagonist’s perspective.  Of course, then the antagonist would be the protagonist, wouldn’t they?

Oops!  Looks like things have gotten muddled, doesn’t it?

Okay.  Enough of the philosophical gymnastics.  Let us, you and I, get down to the brass tacks of the matter.

I’ll try to make this as simple as possible.  When it comes to crafting a story, what I believe the quote means is that the antagonist has their own motivation.  Also, you, as the storyteller, have to know the role the antagonist plays in the story.  When you know the role of your antagonist it can help you find their motivation.  Let’s go over a few examples.

First, let’s look at Stephen King’s It.  Obviously, Pennywise is the antagonist.  What can we define his role as?  I think It can easily fit into the ‘monster’ role.  Okay.  So, what does that mean for its motivations?  Monster’s are forces of nature, they act on instinct, with one desire overwriting everything else.  Most of the time, this amounts to killing and eating indiscriminately.   Grendel from Beowulf is another example of a monster.  

Next, let’s look at Professor James Moriarte from The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes.  What is his role (other than being a Dark Mirror for Sherlock)?  He would be a ‘mastermind’.  He’s smart, thinking one, two, three, and even four steps, sometimes ten steps, ahead of those around him.  He has no compunctions about hurting people, directly or indirectly.  What are his motivations?  Usually, masterminds are worried about making as much money as possible (sometimes it’s to prove they are smarter than everyone else), because they are the antagonists of the story, the means by which they do this is usually through underhanded, immoral, and illegal means.  Unlike the monster, who will strike, stalk, kill, and hunt anything in its path bringing it into conflict with the protagonist(s); the meeting between a mastermind antagonist and a protagonist is usually, at least for the first time, completely coincidental.  The protagonist might not even know they’ve met the mastermind antagonist.  The reason the two of them have come into conflict is because of the difference in morals.  The antagonist wants to be rich/outsmart people and is willing to break the laws of man and nature to do so.  The protagonist, meanwhile, is an upholder of said laws.  Thus, the conflict is inevitable.  For more examples of masterminds check out almost any of the James Bond villains.

Lastly, I’d like to talk about Moff Gideon from the show The Mandolorian.  If we look at his behavior throughout the series, one thing becomes readily apparent, he is in the role of dominator.  A dominator is the type of person that wants to, as the name suggests, control things.  The dominator will lie, cheat, double-deal, and kill to get their way.  They are all about their way.  They want to control a group (like a gang, cult, or similar organization), a town/city/nation/galaxy usually outside of whatever actual government is in charge.  The dominator wants control because they are the only way the group will prosper, or order maintained, or only they have the correct vision of the future, and they don’t care how many rules/laws they have to break or how many people have to die for that prosperity/order/vision of the future.  For another example of a dominator, look at Magneto from the X-Men franchise.

This is by no means an exhaustive list, but I’m not here to give you an exhaustive list.  The point of the post, and the quote it started with, is that your antagonists aren’t just villains, they should be just as much people as your protagonist(s).  

Until next time, be yourself, be well, write yourself, write well.

Life is for the Living   

22 Wednesday Nov 2023

Posted by in Uncategorized, writing

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Let me forgive myself for the stories that are not perfect,

for the scenes rushed through and the plot points fumbled,

and the language less than it ought to be,

and the phrases that make me wince,

even though no one notices but me.

Let me forgive myself for the stories I didn’t write,

didn’t finish, or didn’t let anyone see-

because I was living my life, or saving my life,

because I was falling in love, or falling out of love,

because I had run out of words, or room, or time,

let me forgive myself for all those stories

that live inside me

and not on the page.

Let me forgive myself for my failures, but also

for all those times when I tallied my shortcomings

instead of celebrating each small success.

Let me celebrate now:

not the life that I dreamed of, but the life that I have,

not the stories that I dreamed of, but the stories that I’ve made,

not the writer I imagined I’d one day be, but the writer that I am.

And then let me keep working

                                                      – Terri Windling

Someone I respect posted this a while ago, and I’ve wanted to include it here for some time.  I’ve read it dozens of times since seeing it.  I look at it as a sort of Serenity Prayer for writers.

Writing is largely a solitary endeavor, and as such it is far too easy to be penned in (pun intended) by our own minds.  We are our harshest critics after all, and that means not only of our work, but of ourselves.  Seeing the promotions and the successes of others in our chosen profession can make us jealous, envious, mad, and depressed if we let it.  

In The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck, Mark Manson mentions that we’re constantly bombard in today’s wired world of success stories, of once in a lifetime winners, of instant stardom, of perfect bodies and perfect lives.  Because of this, we can feel like we’re behind, not on schedule, and failures.  He also points out that this is a false narrative.  There are plenty of people failing or just “getting by” every day that we’re not hearing about.  So, it’s pointless to compare ourselves to other people.

Instead, I would like us to take a moment to re-read Terri Windling’s advice.  Go ahead.  I’ll do it with you.

There are going to be times, because of want or wane, that we will not be able to write.  That the stories on the page must stop so that the story of us can reach the end of a chapter, or the beginning of a new one.  And that’s okay.  Really.  Honest.  The story of the suffering, or starving, artist sounds romantic, until it’s you who’s suffering or starving.  

I’m not telling you to quit.  I would never do that.  But if there are times when you can’t, well, that’s how life goes sometimes.  And, again, that’s okay.  It may be a day, a week, a month, a year, maybe even a couple years, but take the time to live, take the time to take care of yourself.  I promise the words, the characters, the stories will all be waiting for you when you come back.  You might even find you’ve become a better writer too.

Take care of yourself, and be well.  

Constraints of Medium

29 Saturday Jul 2023

Posted by in writing

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

I’d like to think that this isn’t just a writing advice blog, but a storytelling advice blog.  In that vein, I want to talk about a movie called, Slayers from 2022.  

If you watch the trailer for the movie, and/or read the synopsis for the movie, it sounds pretty rad.  A bunch of popular social influencers get invited to a pharmaceutical company’s owner’s house to talk about a branding deal.  Unfortunately for the influencers, the owners are vampires that want to turn the influencers, and use their platforms to promote their agenda. Unfortunately for the vampires, a grizzled, experienced vampire slayer is on their trail and is planning on taking them out.  

Doesn’t that sound like a pretty good action movie?  It’s not the stuff of legends, but it’s a fun movie for a Friday night with friends and popcorn.  

They’ve got a good cast.  Thomas Jane plays the vampire slayer, walking the line of paranoid conspiracy theorist and war veteran to a tee.  Abigail Breslin brings her own snarkiness to the lines of the vapid influencer she plays.  And Malin Akerman brings her brand of sexy to the role of vampire matriarch.  

If you decide to watch the movie, there’s a lot of fun stuff to admire.  Flashbacks on Thomas Jane’s character show the fall of a good man, and help to flesh things out.  Cut away scenes of animated sepia toned photographs gives us a quick look into vampire history.  Interjections by Jane’s character narrating the poor decisions of the influencers and nods to video game high score screens, all add together to give the film some pop.  

Sounds like a good movie, you might be saying to yourself.  

Unfortunately for movie-goers, it is pretty bad.  If you ask my wife, and I have to agree with her, I like some pretty bad movies.  I wanted to like this movie, but I just couldn’t bring myself to.  Many others agree, and are pretty vocal about it.  

I would like to point out that this is not a movie review, but a storytelling review.  So, what makes the storytelling so bad?  It’s the plain and simple fact that they are trying to do too much.  There are a few other things, like inconsistency, but the main problem is, they’re trying to shove too much into the medium they’re using.  

Since this is a storytelling review, let’s use more traditional storytelling terms.  For the purposes of this review, we’re going to look at Slayers as a short story.  Movies, like short stories, are meant to be consumed in one sitting, and are shorter (relatively), than the novel equivalent, a season of a television show.  

Like short stories, movies have to have a solid idea of what they want to accomplish.  Clearly, the writers and director wanted to make a fun movie, something reminiscent of the old 1980’s classics.  However, they also tried to pack in new lore for vampires as well, and they also added too many flashbacks, which take away from the present action, not only taking away the tension of the current situation, but bloating the story with excessive information.

Let me explain what I mean about how the tension is cut and the story becomes bloated.  As I mentioned, we get several flashbacks on Thomas Jane’s character’s background.  We get about a five minute long one that shows his daughter dying, and a clean shaven pre-slayer Slayer not being able to save her.  We also get a two to three minute flashback that’s the opening to a crime documentary show that Jane’s character hosted, a man with a beard and steely determination to find his daughter’s killer, and we see the shades of the grizzled, unkempt slayer peeking through.  This sounds cool, and it looks cool in the movie, mainly due to Jane’s commitment to the role.  However, in a later scene, where Slayer is talking to one of the influencers that got away, he explains how his daughter died, and about working on a crime show to find her killers that was ultimately being paid for by the vampires that killed her.  The line is given clearly and with feeling, and explains Slayer’s motivation in about two seconds.  

If the writers were going to have several scenes where Slayer maps things out with the influencers, and the audience, about himself and the vampire conspiracy they’re wrapped up in, then why have the flashbacks?  I mean, more stellar acting from Thomas Jane is always awesome, but the flashbacks are unneeded.  For one thing, Slayer’s clearly unkempt appearance, abrasive social skills, and cluttered RV, are all, mostly visual, shorthand for character expansion for Slayer.  The line with his motivation, given to illustrate how twisted this “family” of vampires is, is enough to nail down the character firmly in the film.  

Let’s be honest with ourselves, there’s only two reasons someone lives off the grid hunting monsters; one, they’re batshit insane, or two, they have a tragic backstory involving said monsters.  As people who are watching this type of movie, as fans of this type of movie, we know this.  There’s no reason to bloat the movie with unnecessary flashbacks to shove the fact down our throat.

Which brings us to the second thing that led to information bloat, the vampires.  There are numerous reasons horror movies are so easy to churn out.  One of the reasons is the permanent place monsters inhabit in the public psyche.  If you go up to someone who isn’t a horror fan and ask them what a vampire is and how you kill it; they could answer you.  That’s why you pick vampires, or werewolves, or a ghost, or a slasher.  As soon as you say that word your audience will know what’s happening and what’s going on.  However, the writers of Slayers decided to bring in lore about how only a vampire’s spirit is immortal and has to transfer to another body to survive.  Also, master vampires, older, more powerful vampires, have to be killed by someone in their bloodline.  All of this is explained by cutting away from the tension of the house and the obvious trap the influencers are in, to the grimy RV with Slayer and one of the influencers.  It also takes up precious time that could have focused on killing more vampires, or vampires toying with the influencers.  

Watching the film, it’s clear that the writers and director had a cool idea and a cool vision for a film.  Had they stuck making a fun, bloody vampire movie, it would have worked a lot better.  However, at some point they decided they wanted to put a spin on vampires, their own mark on the lore.  Which made the movie stumble, and threw off the timing.  Adding this to the flashbacks that, while good (not just the acting, but the cinematography is spot on), only serve to take time away from the current situation, the current danger, the current tragedy, and make the movie feel that much more choppy and cut-up, and the thrilling narrative of the story begins to unravel.  

Here’s the takeaway, know the constraints of the medium you’re using.  For short stories, make sure you know what you want to accomplish and stay focused.  

Be yourself, be well.  Write yourself, write well. 

The Werewolf Problem

08 Monday May 2023

Posted by in writing

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

I recently read a tweet entitled: The Werewolf Problem, and I’d like to share what it was about and some of my thoughts on it.

This is a tweet about someone’s writing class and a lesson the teacher was trying to nail home.  The professor asked the class: How do you kill a werewolf?  The tweeter goes on to say that the answers were what you would expect (and I’m sure some of you have come up with yourself); silver bullets, silver weapons in general, decapitation.  All the classics were represented.

The point of the tweet, and of the lesson the professor was trying to get across, is: It. Doesn’t. Fucking. Matter.  Werewolves do not exist.  They are a fictional construct.  As a fictional construct, you can make up anything you want about them.  However you establish werewolves are killed in your story, then that is how they are killed.  

Sticking with werewolves as an example, I read a novel some years ago, and yes I can’t remember what it was called or who wrote it.  The novel started during World War II and the Nazis had discovered a werewolf.  In order to get “super soldiers” Nazis soldiers were intentionally bitten, but the allies show up and put an end to their little experience.  Then the story flashes forward to the “present”, where an old allied soldier runs into one of the Nazis officers that was turned into a werewolf, who looks the same as he did decades before.  So, in this story being a werewolf means you don’t age, or do so really slowly, also these Nazis-wolves have developed a sonic device which triggers their change into a werewolf outside of the full moon.  To follow a couple more werewolf examples, in the movie An American Werewolf in Paris, someone develops a drug that causes the werewolf change outside of the full moon.  In the book with the Nazis-wolves, silver could harm the werewolves, and even kill them but so did beheading, in the Werewolf in Paris, as in An American Werewolf in London, lots of physical damage could kill the werewolf, but it had to be fatal, otherwise the werewolf would just heal.  In the television show Supernatural, werewolves had to be shot in the heart with silver to be killed, otherwise it was just a big annoyance for them.  And let us not forget that “werewolf” meant something different in all three of these examples.  In the book, werewolves were humanoid in shape, covered in fur with a wolf’s head.  In the movie, werewolves were just really big, really aggressive forms of wolves.  And in the television show, werewolves barely changed at all, having yellow eyes, sharp teeth, and little more than a bad attitude. 

I’m sure if we looked, and feel free to do so on your own time, there are even more types of werewolves with even more ways to kill them out there.  And really, that’s the point.  When you’re writing a story, it’s your story.  If you like the “traditional” descriptions and weaknesses of a werewolf (insert whatever other monster you prefer), then use them, but don’t let tradition and what a “real werewolf” is like hinder your story.  Basing your story on myths and legends is wonderful, especially if you’re having a hard time starting, but you should always strive to make your story your own.

So…If you want your werewolves to turn into actual wolves and only be stopped by chrysanthemums, go for it.  If you want your vampires to be sparkly and have superpowers, why not?  If your fairies are all cannibals and that’s why they steal children, well…actually I think that one is real.  

Until next time: Be yourself, be well.  Write yourself, write well.

A Year in Review

04 Tuesday Jan 2022

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Well, here we are.  Another year behind us.  Another NaNoWriMo in the history books.  We’ve all had some times these past three hundred and sixty-five days.  We’ve lost some people, some things, some beliefs, some ideas.

Firstly, I hope everyone got through things relatively unscathed, and if you didn’t…Let’s just say, good thoughts and wishes to you.

I do want to use the last couple of years to illustrate my point this new year.  We got through it.  We made it to the end.  We finished.

There is an underrated significance in finishing in the writing community, I feel.  There is no trainer pushing us to write every day as in sports.  There is no cheering crowd to push us along the path, handing out encouragement and drinks as we reach the halfway point.  There isn’t even a finishing line to cross when we complete a novel, though there is a finishing line.  If we’re lucky we have that special someone in our lives that congratulates us when we’re done, and if we don’t, well, there’s even less fanfare.

And even then, the process of writing isn’t “finished”, what with the editing and re-writing, and the trying to get published, and then the editing and re-writing.  Of course, there’s the strategy of having more than one project going at a time, which can make it difficult to focus on one, or feel like you’re done with anything, hard.

But there is a significance in finishing.  In knowing that you’ve come to an end.  I want you to know that that half-finished novel, the barely started short story, that “completed” one hundred and fifty pages of NaNoWriMo, I want you to finish it.  I want to know how it ends.  I’m cheering you on.

Ours is a solitary job, calling, journey, and ending, so I’ve found it’s fun to have a ritual for the ending of a story.  Like James Cann’s character in the movie version of Misery, who has a cigarette at the end of a novel.  Sometimes I’ll buy myself a book, sometimes a new pen or notebook, most of the time I just have a soda and sit in silence for however long it takes me to drink it.  It doesn’t have to be a big thing.  I would balk to even call it a celebration.  What I would call it is an acknowledgement of being done, of finishing.

All things, good, bad, indifferent, come to an end.  Shouldn’t your stories be one of them?

Until next time: Write yourself, write well.  Be yourself, be well.

Ghosts of NaNoWriMo Past

25 Saturday Nov 2017

Posted by in writing

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Hey!

So, for those of you that follow the blog, all the way back in November of 2016 I decided to participate in NaNoWriMo. The project has since taken on a life of its own. You can find the story and the Introduction explain more over there. ====================================================>

The Ides of NaNoWriMo

15 Wednesday Nov 2017

Posted by in writing

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Oh, holy hell! Has it been a year already?

Hey, all!

So, we’re back in November. Right, smack in the middle of National Novel Writing Month. It’s that time of year, just this one month, that dedicated to writing a novel.

It may be evident already, but I’m not participating in NaNoWriMo this year. Let me tell you, last year’s project is still kicking my ass. Based on my wife’s editing so far, I may have to take out an entire character. (Sigh.) On top of that, I’m in the middle of a project anyway. And there’s life.

We’re not here to talk about me though. I want to talk about you. NaNoWriMo is for you. It’s for the people who need that extra push, or that initial excuse, to write a novel. If having an entire month dedicated to it isn’t enough then…

Come on! What are you waiting for?

Believe you me, it’s not going to get easier to write a novel. It may get harder though. Life keeps going, work keeps going, the world won’t stop turning. You honestly just have to sit down and do it. The people out there that love this sort of thing have given you a perfect excuse to do it. Try it for a month and if don’t like it, return it for a money back guarantee.

I’ll let you in on a secret, you might not like it. It might be that’s what’s stopping you. You’re afraid to tell your friends and family, ‘I’m writing a novel for NaNoWriMo.’ You’re afraid, because what if you don’t like it? What if you don’t get close to finishing? What will you say if/when the ask how it’s going?

Here’s your permission, and if anyone says anything to you about it you send them to me: You don’t have to like it. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to finish. It’s okay. Not everyone can be writers. Just like not everyone can be surgeons, or electricians, or welders. Maybe you’re not a writer.

The thing is though, you’ll never know if you don’t try. So, if you’ve been thinking about writing a novel, if you’ve felt like you’ve got a novel inside you, then you owe it to yourself to try.

That’s all anyone can ask of you.

Until next time: Try to be yourself. Try to be well. Try to

Ventriloquism, Learn to Throw Your Voice. Fool Your Friends. Fun at Parties

16 Monday Oct 2017

Posted by in writing

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Howdy! Howdy! Howdy!

I like ventriloquism. This probably stems from growing up with the Muppet Show and a steady diet of Sesame Street. There are numerous, talented, ventriloquist out there, but the one I’m going to reference is Jeff Dunham. He should be easy for you to find (he’s very popular now). (If you get a chance look for Nina Conte too.)

Jeff Dunham is popular (go ahead and google him, take a look at his act), but the main reason I want to talk about him, is because during his act he has multiple puppets (“friends”) that he brings on stage. There’s Walter, the old man; Bubba Jay, the hillbilly; Peanut, the weirdo; and Jose Jalapeno on a stick, the pepper on a stick. Mr. Dunham is popular because he’s good at throwing his voice and because he has so many interesting and funny characters. You’d be hard pressed to confuse Walter with Bubba Jay, or Peanut with Jose. At some point in the act, he even has Peanut and Jose out together. It’s very fun to watch.

Now, you might be saying: I thought this was a writing blog, why are you talking about ventriloquists? (You might also be thinking: I hate when he writes like it’s his readers talking to him. That is a different subject for a different post.)

The reason I’m bring up ventriloquists is because I’d like to continue the discussion on character. Specifically, I’d like to talk about character voice.

The best analog I can find for writing a character and finding its voice is ventriloquism. Think about it. We all know it’s the ventriloquist making the puppet move, making the puppet talk, all the dialogue is the ventriloquist’s. The point is though, at some point, and this might only be for an instant, we forget that and accept the puppet as a separate character.

It’s the same for writing. We know it’s the writer making the character do things. We know it’s the writer making the character say things. All the dialogue is the writer’s. The art, the magic, of storytelling is making the characters feel real.

To make the characters feel real we have to keep in mind three questions. 1) How does your character talk? Do they take the ‘g’ off the end of ‘-ing’ words? Making ‘making’ into ‘makin’? Or changing ‘changing’ into ‘changin’? Do they st-st-stutt-tt-tter? Do they not use contractions? The point: Can we identify the character by what they say? 2) How does your character think? This can be an extension of talk, especially in first person stories when readers can get the character’s thoughts first hand. It can also mean their actions. Is Joey the action orientated type, jumping into a situation without thinking about it? Or is Joey the sit back and overthink type? Or is Joey a coward? These characteristics stuff the character, making them stick out from the background (and can be great ways of foreshadowing how they’re going to react in a situation; also gives them something to overcome later in the story—or not—whatever’s more dramatic). 3) How does your character sound? Are they sarcastic, entitled, mean, sincere. This is a combination of several things. If your character acts to help people and tries their best, then they will sound sincere when they talk and think. If your character acts to help people for the glory and does their best to prove they’re the best, they will sound cocky and entitled. If your character acts to help people for a reward and does their best to show they’re worth the price, then they will sound jaded, possibly cold.

See how this works?

I do have some writing advice from one of my writing mentors. He has a very strict policy of not writing from the first person perspective unless he can clearly hear the character’s voice. It’s a good rule. If the main character’s voice is clear in your head, it will be clear (with some work) on the page, and keep the character easily identifiable.

I’d like to give you a real world example involving character voices. Everyone familiar with Veronica Roth? She wrote Divergent, Insurgent, and Allegiant. Disclaimer: I only read Divergent. The following example is from my wife’s reading of the whole series. So, apparently, in the third book Ms. Roth goes back and forth between two characters to tell the story. Chapter one in character one’s voice; chapter two in character two’s voice; chapter three in character one’s voice…and so on. It took my wife two years (three?) to finish the book. She would start it, get frustrated with it, and put it down again. She had to force herself (her words) to finish the book. She had several complaints about the book, but the number one complaint, the complaint I heard about multiple times a day until she was done with the novel, was character voices. She couldn’t tell who she was following in a chapter because the two characters sounded so alike to her. There were several exclamations during the reading of the book, when she thought it was from the first character’s point of view, and then someone would call the character by name and she realized it was from the second character’s point of view. She didn’t like the book, and not only that, it brought the whole series down for her. So, a cool idea [telling the story from two differing perspectives] turned into a gimmick, and not a good one (again, her words).

Until next time: Be yourself, be well. Write yourself, write well.

Character, to Thine Own Self be True

28 Monday Aug 2017

Posted by in writing

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Confession time: I’m a big nerd

No, it’s not true.

I know, I know, it’s hard to believe, but this cool writer persona is nothing but a façade.

I’m bringing this up because what I want to talk about comes through one of my hobbies, roleplaying games. I was hooked on roleplaying games in high school with Advanced Dungeons and Dragons second edition, and I continue to game today (I’ve recently fell in love with Fate Core). It might come to no surprise to you that I’m, like 98% of the time, the Game Master of these games (the one who makes the story the players play in). As a result, I’m the one that knows/understands all the rules and I’m the one that helps everyone make their characters (the personas/people they’re going to be in the game).

It’s the character creation aspect of gaming that I want to talk about today. (This might sound like an intro to roleplaying games, but stick with it and I’ll bring it back around to writing. Promise.) So, creating a character can be as serious or as whimsical as you’d like it to be. For instance, in the current game I’m running, one of my friends got the idea to be an eighties’ business man that got turned into a vampire, but is inexplicably stuck in eighties. Another one of my friends ended up being a mermaid stripper. As you can see, things can get pretty out there if you let them.

What’s this got to do with writing? You might be saying. Give me a minute, I haven’t got there quite yet.

That’s two of my friends (the vampire and the mermaid), but I have to talk to you about my third friend (for privacy sake we’ll call him Dudley). Dudley came in, all serious like, and had a pretty solid idea for his character, came up with a good backstory for him, but as play began quickly became frustrated with things. Why wasn’t his character working the way he thought it should? Why was he having such a hard time doing what he wanted? His character is awesome, why is everything so difficult?

Let’s jump back to my vampire and mermaid friends. When we all sat down to make characters, my two friends were instantly struck with the ideas for a vampire and a mermaid. They were equally struck with the ideas that the vampire should be mentally stuck in the time period he loved the best—the eighties—and that the mermaid was fascinated by humans and ashamed of her mermaid heritage. Everyone thought this was funny, or a good reason to have a mermaid on land, and so they went with the ideas. As the game progressed they jumped into their characters’ traits and fun was had by all.

Now let’s talk about Dudley. Dudley made a character backstory that came out to make him a doofus. First, he learned about the magical in the world by being attacked by a magical being. Then he gave himself an “evil imaginary self,” which is a dual personality disorder (indicating that the trauma of the attack was too much for his weak mind to bear). Then it turns out that because he survived the initial attack by the magical thing, the magical thing has taken a liking to him and keeps coming back to play with him. On top of that, the vampire character has taken advantage of him twice in the backstory, one time causing a magical backlash onto Dudley’s character giving him a “false aura of power.”

All this adds up to, doofus.

However, as that fateful first gaming session commenced, and I, as an attentive and mischievous game master, began poking at Dudley’s character he got increasingly frustrated. Again, his character is awesome, why is everything so hard. Needless to say, Dudley went home a bit miffed about the whole thing (not the intended outcome of playing a game with your friends).

Everything’s okay now. We talked about his character, I told him my take on things, and he’d already thought about it and agreed that he should embrace the doofiness of his character. (To be fair, I did offer to help him make a new badass character).

Yeah, whatever. This still isn’t about writing.

Okay, okay. I promised to bring it back to writing, and we’re here now.

What happened with Dudley and his roleplaying character is a common problem that writers have. They have a cool character concept, but when it comes to putting the character on paper they struggle. This isn’t so much a ‘how do they fit into the story’ in a grand sense, but in a much smaller sense. In a scene by scene sense, a ‘why is this character in this scene’ sense. It’s a meshing of your concept for the character concept and their role in the story.

To bring Dudley’s character back up: His concept for the character was a badass wizard, when the execution of his character creation made him the comic relief of the group.

It is very important for you, as a writer, to line up character concepts with character motivation and character roles in your story. If you don’t it can be a shoe horning effort to find a place for your character in your story.

Alright, let me give you a literary example of what I’m talking about, just so you don’t think I’m talking out my ass. What am I going to use to prove this? Twilight by Stephanie Meyer.

Stop the eye rolling! I can hear you rolling your eyes, you know. The Internet is a magical place, it allows me to do that.

Are you done?

I’ll wait.

Okay. Bear with me, and I’ll walk you through the steps here.

So, we’re going to be comparing Twilight to Bram Stoker’s Dracula.

Let’s get the perfunctory disclaimers out of the way first. I love Dracula, the movie with Gary Oldman and Wynona Ryder. If you haven’t seen it and you like vampire movies I highly recommend it. I also acknowledge that Bram Stoker’s work is a classic and pivotal to the Gothic tradition. This is not me telling you that it’s not an important part of literature, or that you shouldn’t like it. This is me holding it up as an example of shoe horning.

So, we’re going to comparing Twilight to Bram Stoker’s Dracula. We’re doing this because they are basically the same story: immortal creature of darkness finds his one true love and struggles to be with her because of his dark, immortal nature. They also have the same character concept in Edward and Dracula, immortal, strong, fast, predatory.

What we’re going to do is start with a scene and walk backwards through the story to find how the character fits into the story.

Let’s start with Dracula first. Remember: Dracula=immortal creature of darkness.

Here’s the scene: Dracula has found Mina in London and has just bitten her to turn her into an immortal creature of darkness to they can be immortal creatures of darkness together. Bwahahahahaha!

So…we know Mina is in London because she lives there. Dracula, though, why’s he there? Better yet, how’d he find Mina in London, I hear it’s a fairly large city and fairly congested. And Dracula has been chilling in Transylvania for the past six, seven, eight centuries. Well, it helps that, 1) one of the people from London, like the second person, Dracula knows is insane, and just so happens to be in an insane asylum run by the doctor, that’s courting one of Mina’s friends, who, coincidently, Dracula has fed upon and turned into a vampire earlier in the book. Because London only has about fifteen people in it, according to Bram Stoker’s viewpoint. Oh, and 2) the other person Dracula knows in London is a reality lawyer who just so happens to be Mina’s fiancé and had a picture with him so Dracula could see it. Going back to the first question, why is Dracula in London? Why, diversification of course. I’m immortal, and the sole ruler of an entire country, with all of Europe at my fingertips, but I want to own half a dozen rundown houses in London.

Have you spotted the shoe horning yet? It would seem Bram Stoker had a great character concept, immortal creature of darkness, was once a man who lost the love of his life, and damned himself to find her. And he does find her! I just feel like it took a lot of shoe horning him into the story Mr. Stoker wanted.

Now let’s look at Twilight. Remember: Edward=immortal creature of darkness.

Here’s the scene: A car has just lost control in a high school parking lot. Edward jumps between Bella, the love of his life now, and the truck, stopping it with his immortal creature of darkness strength.

So…why is Edward there? Edward, is in Forks because it has horrendous cloud cover that allows him and his family of vampires to walk around in the day (quiet you! I know the reason why and we’re not here to talk about that!). Yes, okay, but why is Edward in high school, being that he’s 150 years old? Well, even though he’s 150 years old, he still looks seventeen, in order to keep up appearances and lead semi-normal lives, he and his “siblings” attend high school. They’re still the creepy kids in the school, but it’s better than being the creepy kids that live in that house waaay out in woods and never come into town except when they want to show off how cool they are.

See how easily Edward fits into the scene? There’s no magical coincidences about Edward knowing half of Bella’s family before he even meets her.

Character concept meets character role seamlessly. Say what you will about the actual writing or the story, but Mrs. Meyer’s planning of the story is spot on.

So, if you’re having trouble finding a reason your character is in a scene or the story at all, maybe you re-evaluate the concept you have of the character and the role they’re playing in the story.

Until next time: Be yourself, be well. Write yourself, write well.

PS: this is the last update before I post A Dinner for Crows. It’s finished. Yay! I just need to edit it a bit and then I’ll be putting it up. I know it’s been a long time coming. It’s almost as if it’s hard to write a novel that’s any good.

With the Bath Water

01 Tuesday Aug 2017

Posted by in writing

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

There’s an old saying: Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water (you know, when you toss the water out of the metal/wood tub you used to clean your baby). Basically, it’s going for just because you had one bad experience don’t let it sour the whole thing for you. Examples include: just because one date went bad don’t stop dating; just because you had a bad time playing Monopoly don’t stop playing board games all together; just because you had a bad day at your job doesn’t mean stop working. Stuff like that. To be perfectly honest, I’m not sure the saying applies here, but it comes to mind when I think about this.

So, a couple months ago, in April (which is now three months now that I think about it), I watched an episode of The Know (video game news show on YouTube). The episode was all about Andrzej Sapkowski and The Witcher videogames. Quick update for those maybe not aware: The Witcher videogames are based on Andrzej Sapkowski books which feature the world of the witcher as well as the main character of the games (Geralt of Rivia).

I’m bringing this up because it’s been stuck in my brain for a while now, and I thought about it again when I sat down to write this. I’m not going to get too specific on what went down (if you’d like the story, including Sapkowski’s quotes, you can find the episode here), but the gist of the whole thing is: BOOKS are the end-all and be-all of storytelling, and videogames are crap for babies!

Let’s put aside the fact that the first game takes place five years after the events in the books, making them stand alone stories on their own. Let’s put aside the fact that these games are considered some of the best storytelling in videogames. Let’s even put aside the face that the people making the games are fans of Sapkowski and thought they were honoring him, and he just shit all over them.

Let’s put all that aside. What he said is still one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard.

Now, am I saying every videogame is a masterpiece? NO. GOD, NO.

That being said, I’ve read some pretty shitty books.

Here’s what I’m saying, society and culture evolve. As an example, when I was a kid in the nineties, and videogames were picking up steam, a common parental disparagement was: do something else, you can’t get a job playing videogames. Now there are literally thousands of people doing just that. To give the argument a more literary context; history, of a person, of a tribe, of the world, used to be oral, handed down from one person to another, then we had books filled with history on every subject you could imagine, and now we have access to a world of information in our pockets.

Videogames too have gone through a similar evolution. From Atari’s Pong, literally a digital version of ping-pong (and not a very good one), to arcade machines meant to take your quarters, to consoles for in home gaming. It’s not just the hardware that’s changed either. I’d like to mention a couple games now, Firewatch and That Dragon Cancer, both of these games are commonly called “walking simulators.” They’re called that because they are first person (the whole screen is your POV) point and click adventures (you use the mouse to click on things on the screen to pick them up and learn something about them). With walking simulators, the whole point of the game is the experience of going through the story with the main character, seeing how it unfolds and resolves. In the case of That Dragon Cancer, the game tells the story of the developer’s child dying of cancer. Not only did making the game help him(?) deal with the loss, he hopes that it can help other people deal with similar losses. Again, these videogames focus more on the story than the “gameplay.”

Now I’m going to mention, Until Dawn or any of the Telltale game series (Wolf Among Us, The Walking Dead, Batman). While these games have some stunning visuals, and larger than life characters, the focus of these games is also the story, specifically the choices you make during play that affect the story one way or the other. There might be some quick time events (pressing certain buttons when prompted before time runs out), but basically you’re watching a movie where you get to pick what the main character does in each scene.

Writing a videogame, or having one of my stories turned into a videogame, would be pretty cool, and I would jump at the chance. Live the dream!

Here’s what I’m trying to say: don’t close your mind. There are many ways to tell a story. There are many ways that culture can evolve, and different ways it can be influenced. Sapkowski has decided that videogames have no poetry, instead of a) seeing the poetry that’s there, and b) contributing to videogames so they have more poetry. Remember, at one point television was a fad, and I dare say there’s some awesome storytelling going on there right now. Just stay open to the possibilities of storytelling.

Until next time: Be yourself, be well. Write yourself, write well.

P.S.: Things are going slower than I’d like. A Dinner for Crows should be coming in the next month or two.