Yes, gasp away—I'm writing about craft.
Well, sort of.
I'm really writing about the dangers of waxing poetic. You see, I started as a poet, publishing my annoying teenage drivel for years and years before seriously writing anything. Now there are good things about that—it taught me to use words to create bigger effects, for one—and there are horrible evil things about that, the worst of which is pacing my prose with punctuation.
Now, to an extent, this is allowable, such as when your character talks. Like. This. That's a good, widely accepted way to use non-grammatical, artistic, poetic punctuation in prose.
However, there are two things not to ever use for pacing, one of which I am horrendously notorious for: commas and em-dashes.
Now, I blame the standard school system for a lot of the comma issues—they tell you commas are pauses, and they are in poetry. Not in prose. I've seen people inadvertently change the entire meaning of sentences by using commas as pauses, and editors let that slip by, for some reason. Luckily, I don't see it terribly often, but it warrants a mention here.
Now for my big problem—the em-dash. I overuse them for two reasons, the first of which is poetic. It creates more of a pause, better delineates a thought from the surroundings. The other reason, and I believe this holds wider prevalence, is literary analysis. For years, I wrote literary analysis papers, which encourage you to have long, complicated, compound sentences, mixing commas, colons, semi-colons, parentheses, and em-dashes. Of course, being in the public school, no one bothered to properly explain the em-dash.
However, these kinds of errors can be overcome, but they don't die easily. To this very day, if I'm tired or unsure of exactly what I'm writing (i.e. writing by the seat of my pants (the same way I write any and all literary analysis papers)) my em-dashes explode everywhere, and normally they shouldn't be there. It's an ingrained habit but, I still think awareness is the number one thing we can have to make ourselves better writers and more proficient editors.
A good dose of black humor helps, too—makes it much easier to laugh about rejections and the like.
Tchüss,
Voss
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Monday, April 2, 2012
Bathtub Novel
The bathtub novel is the number one atrocity in literature. Okay, so it's mostly a biproduct of great literary fiction, but it does show up in SF/F and, I'm sorry, but it doesn't matter—bathtub novels are bad.
What's a bathtub novel? It's a novel in which the character does NOTHING. They sit in the bathtub, lay in bed, hang in stasis, or wait for the evil sorcerer to come and kill them in the dungeon, but they don't actually DO anything. That's not to say an intellectually based work has no place, but if we're looking at mainstream, commercial fiction (which is sort of where I live, if you haven't yet figured that out), someone has to do something at some point. I think Kurt Vonnegut said it best:
“Make characters want something right away―even if it’s only a glass of water. Characters paralyzed by the meaninglessness of modern life still have to drink water from time to time.”
No matter what your book is about, something happens. Real people do things, eventually. It's inevitable. Even if your character has been chained to a wall and can't escape, he or she is going to struggle and kick and talk and whine and cry and bitch and piss and moan and, assuming they're not starving him to death, eat.
Yes, I'm being preachy here―so sue me―but this point is supported by Vonnegut, and last time I checked he wasn't exactly a total failure. It's not to say characters always have to move around and be active, but they can't be inactive the entire book, or you don't really have a plot. Of course, there are exceptions depending on how the plot is displayed to the reader. Look at Wells' “The Time Machine”. Technically, not a whole hell of a lot happens, but the story is told within the story, and hence something happens in the important part, although it's really only Victorian men sitting around smoking and chattering amongst themselves.
Plus, who knows what's going to come of that midnight trip to the supermarket for pizza? Maybe that's the jumping off point for your story and you'll have to (sit down for this) delete those twenty-thousand words of motionless, introspective, literary brilliance and start with “He wanted pizza.”
Actually, that's a good idea...don't use that line...I call dibs...
Off to write a story about a guy who really wants that damn frozen pizza at midnight,
Voss
What's a bathtub novel? It's a novel in which the character does NOTHING. They sit in the bathtub, lay in bed, hang in stasis, or wait for the evil sorcerer to come and kill them in the dungeon, but they don't actually DO anything. That's not to say an intellectually based work has no place, but if we're looking at mainstream, commercial fiction (which is sort of where I live, if you haven't yet figured that out), someone has to do something at some point. I think Kurt Vonnegut said it best:
“Make characters want something right away―even if it’s only a glass of water. Characters paralyzed by the meaninglessness of modern life still have to drink water from time to time.”
No matter what your book is about, something happens. Real people do things, eventually. It's inevitable. Even if your character has been chained to a wall and can't escape, he or she is going to struggle and kick and talk and whine and cry and bitch and piss and moan and, assuming they're not starving him to death, eat.
Yes, I'm being preachy here―so sue me―but this point is supported by Vonnegut, and last time I checked he wasn't exactly a total failure. It's not to say characters always have to move around and be active, but they can't be inactive the entire book, or you don't really have a plot. Of course, there are exceptions depending on how the plot is displayed to the reader. Look at Wells' “The Time Machine”. Technically, not a whole hell of a lot happens, but the story is told within the story, and hence something happens in the important part, although it's really only Victorian men sitting around smoking and chattering amongst themselves.
Plus, who knows what's going to come of that midnight trip to the supermarket for pizza? Maybe that's the jumping off point for your story and you'll have to (sit down for this) delete those twenty-thousand words of motionless, introspective, literary brilliance and start with “He wanted pizza.”
Actually, that's a good idea...don't use that line...I call dibs...
Off to write a story about a guy who really wants that damn frozen pizza at midnight,
Voss
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Art and Culture
How do we define one people from another? Is it by appearance? Then what about the USA, or South Africa, or any other cosmopolitan nation? All right, then it must be by language? What about Switzerland, where they speak German, French, and Italian, or China, where dialects can differ so much that you may not be able to understand someone using a foreign dialect of the language?
It's by the art and culture that we are defined, and that's how it should be in writing, too. Go ahead and pull out your map, with all of those precisely designated countries you hand-rendered, the rivers you tracked down from the mountains, and the carefully drawn microtrees to designate a forested area. Now, what is it that makes one little glob different from the one next to it? If you say anything but art and culture, you're not necessarily wrong, but that should be in there, right up at the top of the list.
Now, I can't rightly separate art from culture, as they both shift and change with one another. Be it your country's food, drink, dance, theater, government, architecture, religion, literature, or whatever else, they should have a unique world view. Do you have to know all of that? Yes. Even if you only really deal with one character form that country? Yes. A country's art and culture will affect its people in such a way that it becomes inextricable from their being. Don't believe me?
Try to imagine how our country would be different without the Beatles, or Dr. Seuss, or the Rolling Stones, or Bob Dylan. It seems weird, but think about every ripple that never would have formed. You really can't, and that's the key thing. Its easy enough to track their influences on culture from the onset, but if you try and remove them, its a totally unpredictable mass of nothingness.
That's how your cultures need to be portrayed, or they probably won't come off as the most clear image that they could. Now, I'm not saying I'm perfectly amazing at this, since I'm not, but the first step to fixing an issue is seeing it, and every writer out there should be behind me on that point, yes?
What, however, influences your art and culture. While it's true that sometimes things are just flashes of inspiration from the gods, particularly on the artistic side of the equation, for realism's sake, one should trace them back to something greater that the people can't really control. Like, if you live in a tundra without heating or other modern conveniences, are you really going to have a face studded with piercings? No, because your whole damn face would freeze, turn black, and shrivel into a frostbitten husk. All right, that might be an exaggeration, but it would be highly uncomfortable and you know it. Look at a desert culture—your first instinct is to have them wearing light, skimpy clothing to escape the searing heat, but when you look at actual desert cultures through history, they wear more clothing than anyone else, because they have something more pressing to worry about than heat—sunburn. Heat may be uncomfortable, but sunburns can be lethal.
Also, why are they divided here? Why isn't this just one giant country like China or Russia? Is it an old religious dispute, governmental disarray, a river, a road? What force is so powerful to keep two countries apart, and is it a point of contention?
Where did their culture come from? Is it wholly original or did they, like many countries on Earth, borrow, assimilate, and steal various important parts of their culture? Are they the Chinese, originating the written characters, or are they Japan, taking the Chinese characters and changing their meanings?
There's so much more I could go into on this subject—hell, books could be written about this subject, if someone had the time—but I'll leave it at that. It's enough to get us thinking, right?
Voss
It's by the art and culture that we are defined, and that's how it should be in writing, too. Go ahead and pull out your map, with all of those precisely designated countries you hand-rendered, the rivers you tracked down from the mountains, and the carefully drawn microtrees to designate a forested area. Now, what is it that makes one little glob different from the one next to it? If you say anything but art and culture, you're not necessarily wrong, but that should be in there, right up at the top of the list.
Now, I can't rightly separate art from culture, as they both shift and change with one another. Be it your country's food, drink, dance, theater, government, architecture, religion, literature, or whatever else, they should have a unique world view. Do you have to know all of that? Yes. Even if you only really deal with one character form that country? Yes. A country's art and culture will affect its people in such a way that it becomes inextricable from their being. Don't believe me?
Try to imagine how our country would be different without the Beatles, or Dr. Seuss, or the Rolling Stones, or Bob Dylan. It seems weird, but think about every ripple that never would have formed. You really can't, and that's the key thing. Its easy enough to track their influences on culture from the onset, but if you try and remove them, its a totally unpredictable mass of nothingness.
That's how your cultures need to be portrayed, or they probably won't come off as the most clear image that they could. Now, I'm not saying I'm perfectly amazing at this, since I'm not, but the first step to fixing an issue is seeing it, and every writer out there should be behind me on that point, yes?
What, however, influences your art and culture. While it's true that sometimes things are just flashes of inspiration from the gods, particularly on the artistic side of the equation, for realism's sake, one should trace them back to something greater that the people can't really control. Like, if you live in a tundra without heating or other modern conveniences, are you really going to have a face studded with piercings? No, because your whole damn face would freeze, turn black, and shrivel into a frostbitten husk. All right, that might be an exaggeration, but it would be highly uncomfortable and you know it. Look at a desert culture—your first instinct is to have them wearing light, skimpy clothing to escape the searing heat, but when you look at actual desert cultures through history, they wear more clothing than anyone else, because they have something more pressing to worry about than heat—sunburn. Heat may be uncomfortable, but sunburns can be lethal.
Also, why are they divided here? Why isn't this just one giant country like China or Russia? Is it an old religious dispute, governmental disarray, a river, a road? What force is so powerful to keep two countries apart, and is it a point of contention?
Where did their culture come from? Is it wholly original or did they, like many countries on Earth, borrow, assimilate, and steal various important parts of their culture? Are they the Chinese, originating the written characters, or are they Japan, taking the Chinese characters and changing their meanings?
There's so much more I could go into on this subject—hell, books could be written about this subject, if someone had the time—but I'll leave it at that. It's enough to get us thinking, right?
Voss
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Top Five Female Characters
I caught a commercial of some kind for "The Hunger Games" today. They were doing an interview with a fan, I think, and they were just so happy to have a strong female character. Of course, that set my radar going.
There are a lot of strong female characters. A whole lot. Why are you acting like there aren't?
Now, I was going to post this yesterday, but I'm glad I waited until today--it's more important, today...somehow. The top five list (although in no particular order, as is par for my course) of female characters in literature.
~Lyra Belacqua: The heroin of Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy. From book one, she's brazen, scoffing at the standard male authority. She also manages to run off, see the world, take part in politics. And that's the first book. We see her rise to womanhood by the end of book three. She stands as a lone voice of reason, traversing the land of the dead for her cause.
~Narcissa Malfoy: All right, don't hit me. How much stronger do you get than Narcissa. I'm not even talking about her power or skill as a witch. I mean as a mother. Molly is supposed to be the 'mother' of the book. I understand that, but a part of me would rather have Narcissa. For her son, no other reason, no thought of the consequences to herself, Narcissa lies directly to Lord Voldemort, and lies so believably that even he believes it. Everything she's ever done, really, has been for her son--and normally in direct defiance of the Dark Lord.
~Loor: Fans of 'Pendragon' will understand immediately. Loor is a consummate human being--compassionate, physically powerful, calm, wise, and possessing of foresight most people will never have. Through the series, she grows into a serene, respectful woman, capable of leading anything you put before her, and willing to take up that challenge. And she has a quality lacking in many literary characters--the ability to defer. If she isn't the best to handle the job, she will step down.
~Lisbeth Salander: Possibly the epitome of the strong female, she isn't necessarily a role model. As she stands, however, she can take care of herself--and does. Intelligent enough to hold a high-paying, high-stress job and she doesn't take anything from anyone. She doesn't buckle to the evils of the world, instead she takes her fate in her own hands, handles her own problems, and, eventually, cares. Slow to emote, she stays resilient to everything trying to erode her.
~Elphaba: The main character of "Wicked", from birth she struggles to her place in the world, and is constantly brought down. Left well and alone because of her green skin, dishonored for pursuing her chosen research, harassed by the government of Oz, thrust into the shadows by Galinda--and yet she still gains power, gets a castle, ends up, through a strange, somewhat confusing series of events, in control of a country, and carries on her research until the very end of her life.
Of course, there are other strong female characters out there--Esme Cullen, Hermione Granger, Osa, Ororo Munroe, Rosalie Hale, Alyss, Homburg Molly, Weaver, et cetera, et cetera--but that's a good sampling, for now, don't you think?
Feeling the girl power,
Voss
There are a lot of strong female characters. A whole lot. Why are you acting like there aren't?
Now, I was going to post this yesterday, but I'm glad I waited until today--it's more important, today...somehow. The top five list (although in no particular order, as is par for my course) of female characters in literature.
~Lyra Belacqua: The heroin of Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy. From book one, she's brazen, scoffing at the standard male authority. She also manages to run off, see the world, take part in politics. And that's the first book. We see her rise to womanhood by the end of book three. She stands as a lone voice of reason, traversing the land of the dead for her cause.
~Narcissa Malfoy: All right, don't hit me. How much stronger do you get than Narcissa. I'm not even talking about her power or skill as a witch. I mean as a mother. Molly is supposed to be the 'mother' of the book. I understand that, but a part of me would rather have Narcissa. For her son, no other reason, no thought of the consequences to herself, Narcissa lies directly to Lord Voldemort, and lies so believably that even he believes it. Everything she's ever done, really, has been for her son--and normally in direct defiance of the Dark Lord.
~Loor: Fans of 'Pendragon' will understand immediately. Loor is a consummate human being--compassionate, physically powerful, calm, wise, and possessing of foresight most people will never have. Through the series, she grows into a serene, respectful woman, capable of leading anything you put before her, and willing to take up that challenge. And she has a quality lacking in many literary characters--the ability to defer. If she isn't the best to handle the job, she will step down.
~Lisbeth Salander: Possibly the epitome of the strong female, she isn't necessarily a role model. As she stands, however, she can take care of herself--and does. Intelligent enough to hold a high-paying, high-stress job and she doesn't take anything from anyone. She doesn't buckle to the evils of the world, instead she takes her fate in her own hands, handles her own problems, and, eventually, cares. Slow to emote, she stays resilient to everything trying to erode her.
~Elphaba: The main character of "Wicked", from birth she struggles to her place in the world, and is constantly brought down. Left well and alone because of her green skin, dishonored for pursuing her chosen research, harassed by the government of Oz, thrust into the shadows by Galinda--and yet she still gains power, gets a castle, ends up, through a strange, somewhat confusing series of events, in control of a country, and carries on her research until the very end of her life.
Of course, there are other strong female characters out there--Esme Cullen, Hermione Granger, Osa, Ororo Munroe, Rosalie Hale, Alyss, Homburg Molly, Weaver, et cetera, et cetera--but that's a good sampling, for now, don't you think?
Feeling the girl power,
Voss
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
News Flash of the Century
To some people, anyway (WARNING: This blog post contains content that may not be suitable for those with weak constitutions or any who have performed the actions held within. I hold no responsibility for any killing spree or other semi-psychotic episode(s) resulting from the reading of this article.).
I've been looking around the Internet, and I got on a tangent. Blame the Internet--everything links to something else. What I found? A lot of people shocked over stupid things. So, I'm here to tell everyone one very important thing:
People have sex. A lot. More than some of us may think. From young to old. So it's only understandable that you might run across sex, be it highly graphic or fade-to-black, in the books you read. Now, I'm not saying "You little whiner, just read it and get over yourself." I totally understand that people don't necessarily want to have sex thrown in their face.
What I'm tired of is people acting all kinds of shocked when, say, there's anything more than a fade-to-black scene with seventeen year olds. Le gasp. If people want realism in their books, which seems to be the consensus among readers, that's a part of real life. Now, I'm not talking graphic scenes--that's illegal--but if two people have sex in their teens, and it doesn't stop right after the kissing, I'm afraid that's the reality of the world, and people need to shut up about it. I walked through the halls of my high school and saw it on the stairs leading to the theatre. More than once.
So, here's the real news flash: teens have sex. I do have a slight problem with it being shown in graphic detail, but we should all understand the feelings. As teenagers, aren't we all hopped up on hormones and ready to jump just about anything, at least some days. And, if they're in a romantic relationship, then some people really need to remove the pickle from the unpleasant orifice.
And, let's just take a look at sci-fi and fantasy right quick. In science fiction, in the future, on an alien planet, who says they have to have the same morals and standards. Maybe there's terrible population crisis in the future, so people have to start having sex as soon as puberty hits. Look at fantasy, in particular the medieval, classic high-fantasy. People didn't live as long in medieval times--so they did everything earlier than we do now. Marriage, sex, babies, and death.
I'd like to reiterate for anyone that might be upset now: I'm talking light stuff. Implied sex, more than anything. That's all I'm asking, here, is that people loosen their sphincters just a touch. I mean, look at "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo." We all accept that book, right? It's an amazing book, but it has uncomfortably graphic rape scenes. How can that be okay, but a little grab-ass at the junior prom is tantamount to a call to arms for every "moral compass" out there?
Just my two cents.
Viva la realism!
Voss
I've been looking around the Internet, and I got on a tangent. Blame the Internet--everything links to something else. What I found? A lot of people shocked over stupid things. So, I'm here to tell everyone one very important thing:
People have sex. A lot. More than some of us may think. From young to old. So it's only understandable that you might run across sex, be it highly graphic or fade-to-black, in the books you read. Now, I'm not saying "You little whiner, just read it and get over yourself." I totally understand that people don't necessarily want to have sex thrown in their face.
What I'm tired of is people acting all kinds of shocked when, say, there's anything more than a fade-to-black scene with seventeen year olds. Le gasp. If people want realism in their books, which seems to be the consensus among readers, that's a part of real life. Now, I'm not talking graphic scenes--that's illegal--but if two people have sex in their teens, and it doesn't stop right after the kissing, I'm afraid that's the reality of the world, and people need to shut up about it. I walked through the halls of my high school and saw it on the stairs leading to the theatre. More than once.
So, here's the real news flash: teens have sex. I do have a slight problem with it being shown in graphic detail, but we should all understand the feelings. As teenagers, aren't we all hopped up on hormones and ready to jump just about anything, at least some days. And, if they're in a romantic relationship, then some people really need to remove the pickle from the unpleasant orifice.
And, let's just take a look at sci-fi and fantasy right quick. In science fiction, in the future, on an alien planet, who says they have to have the same morals and standards. Maybe there's terrible population crisis in the future, so people have to start having sex as soon as puberty hits. Look at fantasy, in particular the medieval, classic high-fantasy. People didn't live as long in medieval times--so they did everything earlier than we do now. Marriage, sex, babies, and death.
I'd like to reiterate for anyone that might be upset now: I'm talking light stuff. Implied sex, more than anything. That's all I'm asking, here, is that people loosen their sphincters just a touch. I mean, look at "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo." We all accept that book, right? It's an amazing book, but it has uncomfortably graphic rape scenes. How can that be okay, but a little grab-ass at the junior prom is tantamount to a call to arms for every "moral compass" out there?
Just my two cents.
Viva la realism!
Voss
Monday, March 12, 2012
Wandering Weeds
Yahoo! Or perhaps YAWP!
I've just been accepted into the great anthology "Wandering Weeds: Tales of Rabid Vegetation", edited by the equally great Frances Pauli and Jaleta Clegg.
Why is it so great?
It's an anthology of what happens when weeds--mostly tumbleweeds, but that's not exclusive--go a little wrong. Radioactive tumbleweeds, enchanted tumbleweeds, but mostly just pissed off tumbleweeds with a sore spot about the human race.
And it's awesome.
I can't say too much about it--lord, it hasn't come out yet, so I don't really know much anyway--but from what I do know, I know it's going to be AWESOME. So...you should all buy it when it comes out, since it's going to be awesome. Have I mentioned that yet?
Peace,
Voss
I've just been accepted into the great anthology "Wandering Weeds: Tales of Rabid Vegetation", edited by the equally great Frances Pauli and Jaleta Clegg.
Why is it so great?
It's an anthology of what happens when weeds--mostly tumbleweeds, but that's not exclusive--go a little wrong. Radioactive tumbleweeds, enchanted tumbleweeds, but mostly just pissed off tumbleweeds with a sore spot about the human race.
And it's awesome.
I can't say too much about it--lord, it hasn't come out yet, so I don't really know much anyway--but from what I do know, I know it's going to be AWESOME. So...you should all buy it when it comes out, since it's going to be awesome. Have I mentioned that yet?
Peace,
Voss
Friday, March 2, 2012
Queer Fish
Should I, could I, write this post?
Will you, will you think it's gross?
From Baton Rogue to Tuskaloos'
Everyone knows about Dr. Seuss
Okay, I'm not really a poet, and I'm no Dr. Seuss by any stretch of the imagination, but I feel like I need to honor him today. For those that don't know, today is Theodore Seuss Geisel day, in commemoration of his birthday. Today, had he survived, he would have been 108 years old.
Damn.
Of course, we probably all know his work in children's books (Sam I Am, Green Eggs and Ham, Oh, the Places You'll Go, The Lorax, The Butter Battle, Diffendoofer Day), but in that seeming inanity and simplicity, didn't he achieve the goal we all strive for? Is he not, at least a little bit, immortal?
Geisel and Dahl stand out as unique childrens' authors in my mind, mostly because they are queer fish.
Far fish, near fish, old fish, queer fish.
Why are they queer fish? Think about their work. Admittedly, they had some basic childrens' books, but they also didn't, and the books (I nearly wrote fish there, so you know) that aren't your average childrens' books seemed to stick around better. The Lorax is terribly depressing, The Sneetches is totally political and, again, not a happy story. The same can be said of Dahl's James and the Giant Peach, The Witches, and Matilda.
Why is that important? Both Seuss and Dahl decided that children could handle dark subjects and, yes, there are some Dahl books I would never read to children (Dahl fans know what I'm talking about.), but Seuss was a smashing success. The pointlessness of war, prejudice, deforestation--he presented them all in kid-friendly format, and with a unique, brilliant, and recognizable style. It's thanks to those two and, in America, mostly Seuss that we have as much freedom as we do in young adult and middle grade literature.
Theodore Geisel, I bow at your feet,
Voss
Will you, will you think it's gross?
From Baton Rogue to Tuskaloos'
Everyone knows about Dr. Seuss
Okay, I'm not really a poet, and I'm no Dr. Seuss by any stretch of the imagination, but I feel like I need to honor him today. For those that don't know, today is Theodore Seuss Geisel day, in commemoration of his birthday. Today, had he survived, he would have been 108 years old.
Damn.
Of course, we probably all know his work in children's books (Sam I Am, Green Eggs and Ham, Oh, the Places You'll Go, The Lorax, The Butter Battle, Diffendoofer Day), but in that seeming inanity and simplicity, didn't he achieve the goal we all strive for? Is he not, at least a little bit, immortal?
Geisel and Dahl stand out as unique childrens' authors in my mind, mostly because they are queer fish.
Far fish, near fish, old fish, queer fish.
Why are they queer fish? Think about their work. Admittedly, they had some basic childrens' books, but they also didn't, and the books (I nearly wrote fish there, so you know) that aren't your average childrens' books seemed to stick around better. The Lorax is terribly depressing, The Sneetches is totally political and, again, not a happy story. The same can be said of Dahl's James and the Giant Peach, The Witches, and Matilda.
Why is that important? Both Seuss and Dahl decided that children could handle dark subjects and, yes, there are some Dahl books I would never read to children (Dahl fans know what I'm talking about.), but Seuss was a smashing success. The pointlessness of war, prejudice, deforestation--he presented them all in kid-friendly format, and with a unique, brilliant, and recognizable style. It's thanks to those two and, in America, mostly Seuss that we have as much freedom as we do in young adult and middle grade literature.
Theodore Geisel, I bow at your feet,
Voss
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)