Cup of Story

Don't be a waiter

2012

Holy cow it's a new year! When did that happen?! The end of the year just flashed past and now it's January.

There's been a lot of talk about Amazon and now a rumor of Apple starting a self-publishing program has popped up on teh interwebs. I hope the rumor is true and that their program is comparable to Kindle. I also hope that B&N's self-pub'ing program gets a revision, or at least their search for interested readers is cleaned up. More retailers for independent writer-publishers is a good thing. No more waiting around. You can start making money.

1. You can sell your work as soon as you want.
2. You can price your work for as much as you want.
3. You can continue to sell your work for as long as you want.

 

I've heard a lot of excuses: lots of writers moan and groan and say, "But I don't wanna be a publisher, I wanna be a writer!" or "That's a lot of work and I'm already tied up with day job and family and Xbox and websurfing and lolcats and and and..."

The biggest whine I've heard is, "But I want to be a real published author. I want to be taken seriously!" translated to mean, "If I publish my own work, everyone will think I'm a loser because only loooooosers publish themselves."

This excuse always makes me scratch my head. Novelists want to get paid for their work. Why is getting paid directly (more or less) somehow less desirable than getting paid by a publisher? From everything I've heard (and been a part of), the publisher takes a really long time to pay out. And that's if you even get offered a contract. So you're either sitting around waiting to be paid, waiting for a contract, waiting for someone to respond (agent/editor).

You're a WAITER.

If your goal is to get paid for your writing, you are shooting yourself in the foot for not even considering the potential of Kindle/Smashwords/B&N, etc.. Your manuscript in the mail or in someone's In Box or sitting on a shelf or in your drawer is NOT making you any money.

No sale at $0 = $0

3 sales at $2.00 = $6.00

Don't you think your work is better than $6.00? Of course you do, that's why you sent it out to a list of literary agents you hoped might get you a contract from a publisher. If you didn't think it was worth something to someone else, why would you have bothered to send it out in the first place?

I'm not saying that you will become an overnight billionaire with one book on Amazon. But if you don't even try, then I guarantee you won't sell a single copy.

You believe in your writing (you must since you think an agent and publisher should find it saleable), so take control of reaching your own goal instead of waiting for someone else. You are not a WAITER.

You are a writer.

So get cracking and make 2012 your year to make money from all your hard work as a writer!

 

NaNoWriMo may not be for you

NaNoWriMo has begun! This is the month for all you reluctant would-be writers to get some words down.

I'm of two minds about NaNoWriMo, which stands for National Novel Writing Month. The goal is to start writing on Nov. 1st and get down 50,000 words by the end of the month. Participation in the national event doesn't win you a prize or publishing contract. But it might help someone who needs to focus and create a writing habit.

 What I don't like about NaNoWriMo is the focus on getting words, quantity of words, out. Writing 50k words of crap is just a waste of your time… unless you're doing it purely for the sake of seeing how many words you can spew in 30 days. Without editing. Without proofing or plotting or even doing much work beyond vomiting all over the page. Because tossing out 50k words in 30 days isn't difficult--I can bang out more than 2k in a couple of hours if I really focus--but if those 2k words are crap, I'm just wasting my time. I have to go back and rip them out, shred them, throw them away because I didn't think about my plot, didn't have my characters well developed, didn't know what my story was really about. Or I was just fooling around with my vocabulary lincoln logs.

 I suppose if you've done all your prep work--outlined your plot, developed your characters, done your research, figured out the ways and means of your society/world--then, yes, all you need to do is flesh it out. And getting out a first draft in a month should be doable if you've done your prep work to the best of your ability. Of course, best laid plans and all that--I know characters sabotage stories and a tiny plot point suddenly decides to get all up in your face, which might be a better thing than the limp idea you'd thought was so shiny.

 What I do like about NaNoWriMo is the ability to get people talking about writing, to get them to try it and really knuckle down. I'm talking about those wannabes who blab about how much they want to write, how much they admire or dislike the current fad/trend, or how much they've always dreamed of being a writer. And what better time than now to be a writer? Anyone can throw their novel up on any number of digital distributors' sites and get stories into fans' hands for a couple of bucks. It's a win-win situation.

 Do I recommend you leap into NaNoWriMo? I suppose if you want to test yourself and see how much you can churn out, sure. If you have trouble with writing everyday and need some kind of deadline or focus, then NaNoWriMo might be for you (a goal of 50k by end of the month can be broken down into manageable chunks for easy tracking).

But, if you already have a steady work habit, can finish regularly and get out your 1st draft with reasonable ease, don't need to find a community to bolster your ego and a cheer squad on the sidelines (this helps many timid writers, which I think is great, since writing is a solitary effort, but too many writers start to get distracted and begin writing for the cheerleaders rather than to their own ideas), then I'm not sure you need bother.

 Still, lots of people I know--established and new writers--leap into this every year. So, happy trails to all participants! I just think you should be focusing on QUALITY rather than quantity, but I'm an editor, so I'm ALWAYS looking for Better Writing even when I'm not doing it (do as I say, not as I do *winkwink*).

 

 

 

Gothic tales

I'm a big fan of modern horror--thrills, chills, and sit-on-the-edge-of-my-seat-nailbiters. But in the 1800s, some well known writers were into spooky tales, too.

Jane Eyre

For me, Charlotte Brontë's Jane Eyre is a creepy story. There may or may not be a ghost haunting Edward Rochester's mansion. At the time I read this, I think I wanted there to be a ghost haunting the mansion. Mysterious doors opening and closing (drafts), strange fires being set, laughter, creaking floors. You name it, all the hallmarks of a haunting. Instead, we get the crazy first wife locked away in the attic. That's pretty spooky. (OK, the story isn't about the crazy first wife, but it's the thing that stuck in my mind the most.)

The House of the Seven Gables

Another spooky and creepy novel that implies horrific shenanigans without coming right out and showing it. Lineage tracing back to the Salem witch trials colors the story and the burgeoning love between the two main characters offers hope. Again, it's not a traditionally horrific story, but there are creepy bits and spooky flavors that make this Nathaniel Hawthorne novel one for the list.

 

Edgar Allan Poe

I love Poe's work and all its creepy, spooky, Gothic-ness. His work definitely seems to have influenced the modern horror genre--what horror writer today hasn't read any Poe? In fact, who hasn't heard some or all of The Raven? Awesome stuff (I love that it appears in one of The Simpsons Halloween specials). People being buried alive, a murderer haunted by the sounds of his victim's heart, the dead rising to bring destruction upon the family… the best gruesome and terrifying stuff of its time. If you want scary tales, definitely pick up some Edgar Allan Poe. My favorites: The Tell-Tale Heart, The Fall of the House of Usher, The Murders in the Rue Morgue, The Pit and the Pendulum.

 

Spooky stories continued--Audrey's Door

Sarah Langan's Audrey's Door is a creepy and tragic story that definitely flies its novel and movie references. Langan acknowledges those inspirations--Jackson's Hill House, Polanski's movies, Rosemary's Baby, among others--which got me excited. She did not disappoint. 

The titular character, Audrey, is a struggling young but talented architect with a bit of an OCD compulsion. She and her boyfriend have just broken up, and she needs to find a place to live. As anyone knows, New York City is very expensive, but she finds an impossibly affordable 2 bedroom rental in a historic pre-war building on the Upper West Side. As an ex-New Yorker who only managed to afford rents in Brooklyn, I, too, drooled at the description. Audrey immediately recognizes the infamous Chaotic Naturalist design of this building called The Breviary, and can't believe her fortune.

As the old saying goes, you get what you pay for. The incredible low rent (for this type of space and in that neighborhood) is a lure by the occupants of the building. Decrepit descendants of the original tenants, the elderly inhabitants have a plan for poor Audrey. They want her to build a door. The others who were lured into this scheme have failed: Audrey's apartment's former occupant wasn't strong enough to build it--that woman murdered her four young children before taking her own life. Another young single woman was sacrificed as an aid to opening the door. And the door Audrey eventually builds--despite her resistance--is a portal to a terrible dark place.

This is another haunted "house" novel, and like all satisfying stories, is more than just about the creaks and looming disaster. We find out how Audrey's particular sensitivities and personal childhood tragedies have shaped her and made her nearly the perfect builder for the malevolent Breviary. We read about Audrey'd boyfriend, who tries his best with Audrey even through his own stumbling messes. The tenants of the Breviary are both pitiful and terrible.

Langan's two previous titles, The Keeper and The Missing are also well worth reading, but I really enjoyed Audrey's Door more. Maybe it's because the story is more intimate; I felt sorry for Audrey while hoping she gets help--mentally and physically. I wanted her to survive, and was very satisfied with the ending. A definite recommendation for this Halloween season.

 

Haunted House books

It's that time of year again when Jack o'Lanterns and ghouls start appearing in people's yards. The supermarkets are full of big bags of tiny candy. And Sy Fy runs their 31 days of Halloween (some of the shows and movies are better than others, but I'm glad they stuck with the tradition).

I like horror and I like scary books. I think I've outgrown gross-out stories and never liked the hack-and-slash ones. What keeps me riveted to a good horror book is the mounting tension and the knowledge that yes, something really bad is going to happen.

Two of my favorite titles are Shirley Jackson's The Haunting of Hill House (1959) and Richard Matheson's Hell House. Read back-to-back, the two make for an interesting parallel reading. Jackson's house is much less gruesome than Matheson's, but not any less chilling. The characters who enter Hill House want to uncover its supernatural elements. Dr. Montague searches for proof of supernatural activity. He sends out letters to all known psychically talented individuals to join him for the summer, but only two young women--Theodora and Eleanor--accept the invitation. The heir to the estate, Luke, plays their host. As the novel progresses, poor fragile Eleanor starts to hallucinate--or perhaps she is truly in touch with the ghosts of Hill House--and finds herself in precarious and dangerous situations (running to help a ghost child and waking to find herself in the greenhouse perched on a rotting walkway feet above the ground). The house's affect on Eleanor grows more dangerous and the others finally convince her to leave, but because she's either convinced herself of a responsibility to the ghosts or she really is being changed by Hill House, Eleanor changes her mind at the last second to dire consequences.

 

Hell House (1971) starts out being gruesome and doesn't let up for a moment. A physicist, Dr. Lionel Barrett, is paid to prove to a dying millionaire that life doesn't end with death. He sends the scientist to the Belasco House infamous for the gruesome and perverse history and a previously failed investigation where all but one person survived. Armed with cold scientific method, Barrett and his wife are joined by a famous Spiritualist and mental medium (Florence), and the only survivor from the previous attempt, Benjamin Fischer. The house is, indeed, haunted and Florence becomes convinced she must aid a lost soul. Her obsession turns dangerous, and even after Barrett's psychic energy cleansing machine is activated, the strange malevolent forces continue to work their havoc on the team. Fischer is the only one to finally use his talents to end the destruction in a very cinematic ending.

Both of these novels have been made into movies. The real story lies with the characters and how their backgrounds contribute to their mania. Both stories have a voice of "reason", someone who insists on a reasonable method for solving the problems. Both have fragile female characters, although Florence seems misguided rather than emotionally unstable. Both endings have their satisfying moments--I would have been dissatisfied had all party members escaped unscathed--although Hell House is more graphic.

I caught the series premiere of American Horror Story; lots of early reviews and write-ups talked about how "scary" it was. I wasn't scared. Intrigued, curious to see where it goes and how the characters react, and yearning to learn the backstory. But not scared. It's a haunted house story. And those never turn out well. Inevitably, I want to know which of the characters makes it out alive, or what's the tipping point that forces them to flee or destroy their house (for this TV family is the symbol for starting over). Were there "shocking" moments? I guess--images of dead kids appearing behind the mom, a bully getting attacked by something that may or may not be there, the appearance of a half-burned man in the yard. The really "scary" characters are the failed-actress neighbor played by Jessica Lange, who snoops around the house stealing, and the teenaged boy patient, Tate, played by Evan Peters. Curiouser and curiouser.

The one thing about horror I've noticed is how important the characters are to the story. Their internal thoughts, their hopes and dreams, their nightmares, their weaknesses and desperation. All of that messy glorious stuff makes a horror story truly stick; we have to care about the characters enough to be affected by their terrifying situation. And their internal issues are usually more complicated than we first realize. The Haunting of Hill House, Hell House and even American Horror Story all delve deep into the characters. Fantastically horrific stuff.

Banned books

List of Most Challenged Books in the U.S.

You've probably heard a bit about controversial books now and then. I took a look at the books on the list and thought, "Really? Srsly? This title? Or That Title?"

And then I look at the news and hear about people booing at the GOP debates over Gays serving in the military, about crowds cheering for someone who dies without medical coverage...

I read about a NYC cop who peppersprays peaceful, non-violent protestors for no reason other than He Can.

I hear about how NRA Exec. VP, Wayne LaPierre claims that the president wants to strip the Second Amendment despite Obama's huge support of gun ownership. 

Makes me crack open a few more books on this list and really think about what's being said about Why they're challenged or banned...

It's about the ending.

If you don't know the end of your book, what are you writing towards?

Everything in your plot should be pushing your reader towards the ending. That might mean you have to set up a bunch of things to be revealed at the end. Or reactions have to occur at the end. But they need to be prepped at the beginning and throughout the middle or else, it feels like a deus ex machina… or worse.

You know the endings I mean, the ones that seem to come out of left field, that wrap the story up in a very unsatisfying way. Stephen King slays me with how abrupt some of his endings feel. I like his writing, I like his stories, I'm invested in his characters. I got to the end of Under the Dome and went, "WTF?! It's all just an alien kid playing a game?" Because none of that was hinted at or alluded to or even remotely identified in any way throughout the rest of the novel, the sudden appearance of alien tech in the middle of the woods just seemed completely out of place. As if King tacked it on at the end in a fit of "inspiration".

I don't know if that's what happened; maybe he had that idea all along. The problem is that the entire plot hinged upon a mysterious "something" trapping the townspeople under an impenetrable dome. By reducing that "something" to a little kid alien playing a game, it cheapened all the terrible things that happened to the townspeople. Of course, the whole idea was to show us how these characters reacted under pressure, and the stress brought out the worst in them (and maybe for some, the best).

But I was unsatisfied with the ending because it felt unsupported. It hadn't been set up, and therefore was unexpected.

So you must think about offering your readers all the information and clues they need to expect the ending, and then happily surprise them by giving it to them in a way they hadn't expected. Boy Saves the World from Evil Overlord but not in a flashy showdown. Instead, he stops fighting and forgives. I expected him to win, but not by shutting off his lightsaber. I got the ending I wanted (and expected) but also a little something else.

 

Tips for character creation

"Stereotypical", "flat", "two-dimensional". You might have heard these words about your characters, or you might have thought them of characters you've read. What makes a character feel real? They're not real people, you're reading fiction, after all. I hate hearing, "Well, in reality…" or "In real life…" You're not writing about reality or real people.

But, you can use real-life traits in your characters that real people--you and I--can recognize and relate to in some way.

Here are some things to consider:

1) Flaws

Your characters shouldn't be perfect. They shouldn't look, act, or respond "perfectly" unless they're robots or some other simulacrum, and even then, they'd be pretty boring. Flaws are what make characters feel "real". They are also the details that make them sympathetic and believable. If you make your hero's love interest "perfect" with "flawless skin" and "perfect hair", your reader will yawn and move on. But if her eyes are a little too wide and her hair is a little too frizzy and she has a crooked but bright smile, your hero will think she's perfect, which is the whole point of that love-connection. He has eyes only for her, crooked smile and all.

 2) Depth

Dig down deep into your characters' psyche. Why do they want what they want, and what are they willing to do to get it? What aren't they willing to do? What is the one thing that would make them cross their personal line, and why? You're the creator, so go down into the psychiatric depths to plunder their deepest secrets. There has to be more to a coming-of-age story than just "boy has magic powers he has to develop in order to save the world from the evil demon lord". What traits make this boy special--it's not just his magic. It's much more than that, and the boy, himself, can have doubts and fears (all your characters should have doubts and fears--it's what makes them relatable). Harry Potter has doubts about his fate and his affect on others. Neo has doubts that he is "the one" to save humanity. Luke has doubts that he can repel the dark side of the force (*waves geekflag wildly*).

Of course, not all characters need to have a full set of knock-off Louis Vuitton baggage--those kids in the Magic Treehouse books have very linear wants and needs. They want to help someone, they need to act within a certain time frame, and they have to get home through the treehouse. The boy is often more hesitant to jump into action because he's a little older and more circumspect while his younger sister is all about aiding those in need. It's a pretty good balance that offers just enough tension to keep the story from devolving into pure saccharin history-lesson-as-story.

 3) Voice

What do your characters sound like when they think? When they have their internal monologue? When they're having a conversation? Give them a distinctive voice so that your readers create an audio track in their minds. It's the same as creating each character's individual physical looks--give them a voice, too.

Voice also applies to the narrative. If you're writing in tight 3rd person Point of View, your narrative can have the "voice" of your main PoV character. I'm not saying leap into cockney or some mangled form of southern drawl, I'm talking about the cadence, rhythm, and tempo of the narrative exposition. In Neil Gaiman's Graveyard Book, the narrative has a storyteller tone, an almost "Once upon a time…" melody. George R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series switches PoV every chapter, and while the author's voice is firmly planted, you definitely know which character's Point of View is revealing (or hiding) the story. That's voice.

You see it most obviously in 1st person PoV narratives--Holly Black's Curseworker books, Ilona Andrews' Kate Daniels series. Those voices are strong and very individual. They also have to be unique to carry an entire novel or series. Individual outlooks that are sometimes unreliable (which means that the reader only knows as much as the narrator; sometimes, that ignorance is what gets that character into trouble and keeps the reader glued to the pages) can make for a really great mystery (it also can show off all those neat flaws that make a character so individual).

So when you're creating your characters, move beyond the simplistic physical traits, go deeper into their psyche, and give your exposition a unique feel all your own. Use these things to propel you further into creating magnetic characters that move through your world and act out your plot.

 

 

 

Friday Reads--Heart Shaped Box

What is it: A thrilling hororr novel.

What's it about: An aging rock star who collects gruesome objects buys an old suit that's haunted.

Why I like it: Great characters and pacing. I like creepy stories. I like stories that keep me entertained and riveted. This is a ghost story, but the ghost is more than mean. Jude, the central character, isn't one to be easily spooked, but when unexplained things start to happen in his house, he begins to realize that he's in deep trouble. 

The best thing about Heart Shaped Box is the pacing. Building like a thriller with all the bottled up tension of a shaken soda bottle, the ending is both unexpected and satisfying in a totally visceral way.

 

What I didn't like about it: Is wanting more books by the author something to dislike? I'm greedy, I read fast, and I like Hill's writing. More please! (and yes, I've read Horns and the ongoing Locke & Key--all fantastic!) 

Final thoughts: It's hard not to think of Joe's dad, Stephen King. Both write very breathable, recognizeable characters caught up in supernatural conflicts. I've been a long time King fan, but I'm much more satisfied with Hill's endings (they actually work!). If you're thinking of pacing and how to crank up your tension, pay attention to Hill's novels. They are darn good.

 

To Stand or Sit?

There's been a lot of talk about how standing at your desk is better for you. That NYTimes opinion piece brings up some interesting things to think about. We writers and editors sit on our tookuses for hours at a time. We're either writing, reading, or "doing research" (aka playing Angry Birds or looking at Icanhazcheezburger cats).

And we snack. And drink coffee. And eat lunch at our desks (which is also supposed to be a big no-no--crumbs in your keyboard begone!).

Because I have adjustable legs on my desk (I have to because I'm really short), I thought, "Why not make it a standup desk and see if there's any noticable difference?"

I sit and stand and sit and stand rotating throughout the day. I think if I had a flat surface to stand on instead of living room carpet, I might like it more. But my legs and ankles strain in funny ways. I tried standing on a piece of wood, but then I'm lifted higher than my desk, which causes awkward keyboarding and mousing (I'm at the maximum height for my legs). It's about a 3/4" difference with the board, so it makes a huge difference when typing.

All in all, I like standing. When I feel fatigue, I sit on a barstool-height chair. When I feel like I'm slouching or when my ass gets numb, I stand up. I can stretch, stand on one leg, rotate my stiff ankle and still surf the web.

It also makes it a lot easier to go for more coffee.

Here are some other links to standup desk setups: Standing Desk Jockey, DiY platform for desktop