GENREALITY

I want to begin with a disclaimer. This is a blog about breaking rules – sometimes. But you can only break those rules if you know what they are. Please do not take what I’m about to say as something you should “always” do. Use only when necessary.

I’ve been judging a great many contests lately. Most of these are for new writers and the No. 1, problem I see is their stories are full of telling instead of showing. That and they almost always load up those first chapters with backstory they don’t need. But backstory is a topic for another day.

As you know, it is always better to show, rather than tell a story. Showing gives the author an opportunity to bring the reader in by showing the characters in action. Henry James called this dramatizing. According to Wikipedia Janet Evanovich says, “It is the difference between actors acting out an event and the lone playwright standing on a bare stage recounting the event to the audience.”

All of this is true. It’s difficult to engage the reader and get them invested in your characters if you don’t show the action. We need to feel like we are there and showing us through the actions and dialogue is the way to do it.

BUT there are times when telling is necessary. If you always “Show” your story, first you will have a tremendously long book. Second you’re going to have a lot of problems with pacing. When you show a story, it takes many more words to do so. When you do that all the time, it can bog down the prose and create a snail’s pace.

How many times have you read a book and thought, “Just get on with it.” You know those pages you skip and skip to get to the heart of what the author is trying to say? That’s where a little telling would come in handy.

In that same Wikipedia article it has a quote from James Scott Bell that says a writer “tells” as a shortcut in order to get to the meaty part of the scene. “Showing is essentially about making scenes vivid,” says Bell. “If you try to do it constantly, the parts that are supposed to stand out won’t, and your readers will get exhausted.”

If you’re writing literary fiction, show all you want. But if you want to be successful with commercial fiction you need to find the right balance of showing and telling. People tell me all the time my books are fast reads. I honestly do more telling than I should, but I like books that have a fast pace. I’m also not a big fan of using a great deal of description, which is required with showing.

The thing to watch out for when you use  “telling” is that you don’t end up with: and then this happened, and then that happened and then…

As Bell says, you want those big dramatic scenes to mean something and that can’t happen if you are telling the reader about the event, rather than showing.

My point, and I really do have one, is that you have to find out what works best for the book/scene you are writing. I’m working on a scene where a character has to travel from one place to another. The journey isn’t what is important, it’s the confrontation when she gets there. If I show that journey, it’s going to take forever to get to the heart of the scene. We need to know that she’s gone from point A to point B, and that’s she’s nervous, but I can tell the point A to point B part, and show just a bit that she’s nervous. Then Pow! I hit you with the confrontation.

I’ve seen some really talented writers use too much showing, which bogged down their books to the point where I wanted to throw it across the room. I can be on page 75 and still not know what the hell kind of story I’m reading. It’s frustrating. But as I said before, I prefer books with a good, brisk pace.

I remember years ago I was in a class at a conference where an author was teaching the difference between showing and telling. He read one scene where he used “telling” and then he read it again where he used “showing.” He insisted the second one was better, but it wasn’t. It was a transition from one scene to the next, and it didn’t need all the showing.

I only want new writers to know, that yes, showing is important. But it isn’t always the best way to write a story. There are times when a little telling comes in handy.

Tweet This Post

I don’t care what kind of book you write, if you don’t have engaging characters readers will only hang around for so long. There are those who believe plot is equally important, but I disagree. I’ve read books with inane plots that made no sense, and still I hung in there because I fell for the characters. On the other hand, if I can’t connect with the characters, I’ll never finish the book.

My books usually start with the idea of a couple of characters and then I weave the story around them. I honestly don’t do a lot of research about my characters. I discover them as the story unfolds, in much the same way the reader does. That first draft is always exciting because even though I have a general idea of who/whom my characters are, they always end up surprising me.

I’m writing this blog today because I just fell for my hero in my current WIP in a very big way. He’s so much more kind-hearted than I ever imagined. And he loves the heroine beyond the beyond, of course he can’t tell her that. He’s a manly man, and even he is shocked by how much he cares for this woman.

What seals it is the heroine isn’t the easiest person to love. She’s closed off emotionally and extremely protective of her heart. She likes things a certain way and prefers order over chaos. Though when she’s with the hero everything is thrown off balance.

They’re both strong people, which makes the sparks fly when they do come together. And chemistry is a huge part of what does or doesn’t make a character work. I see it all the time in film and television. There’s a couple on screen who just doesn’t connect. They go through the motions, but the emotions and chemistry are not there. That happens in books too.

There’s a reason why the majority of women who read Jane Austin’s  Pride and Prejudice fall for Mr. Darcy. Sure he seems like a snob at the beginning, but he’s handsome and we get the feeling there’s more to him than meets the eye.

That’s what writers must do if they want to make a character interesting. It isn’t something you hit the reader over the head with and say, “look my hero is a really good guy.” You do it subtly so that your reader falls for him around the same time your heroine does.

But it doesn’t have to just be with the romantic characters. Chemistry is an important part of all relationships. There’s a new show coming on FX called Terrirers. It’s about a PI and his best friend who solve cases. It stars Donal Logue and Michael Raymond-James as the best pals.

When I had a chance to talk to them a few weeks ago, I mentioned their chemistry. Turns out they’d known each other for some time, and they even lived together while making the show. They’re best friends in real life too, which comes across on screen.

Those secondary characters in our books deserve just as much attention when it comes to creating the chemistry they have with those around them. When I was working on the Bronwyn books, I had to make sure all those secondary characters were just as emotionally deep and fleshed out, as she was. Same with the Caruthers sisters and in my new Blazes. Many times those secondary characters get their own books, so it’s important that I create that chemistry with the reader from the beginning.

So how about you? Do you have characters who stand out for you in books, television or film? Tell us why.

Tweet This Post

Since I’m into trying new things with my writing right now, stretching my creative muscles and all that, I’ve been looking back at some of my own earlier stuff. That means some of the articles I’ve written as well as stories. I found a file from an online workshop on Writing Dynamic Scenes that I did a while ago, and it really hit home, so I thought I’d share the first part of the lecture here.

From the workshop:

I’m going to start with What does Dynamic Mean?
There are a few definitions for this word, but for our purposes it means “stimulating development or progress”. That definition is KEY. Dynamic scenes must move the story forward and/or show the reader something important. I say “and/or” because some writers will tell you every scene Must move the story or plot forward, but I don’t believe that. There is more to a good story, and more to a dynamic scene, than plot and story arc. Stories are about characters, and we should never forget that.

That means that a scene can still be integral to the story without actually moving the plot forward – but if it doesn’t advance the plot then it has to have another purpose. Character development for example. Description is not a valid purpose. Showing us what a normal uneventful day is for your character is not a valid purpose. If you have a scene in your story where the heroine is showering or doing laundry, she better be having a revelation of some sort that is important and stimulating to us as a reader while she’s doing these things. Make sense? (feel free to ask questions in the comments if you need clarification)

This may seem stupid, but the first thing you need to do to write a dynamic scene is ….write the scene.

Yes. Seems like something I shouldn’t have to tell you, right? Well, I’m telling you this is the first step because too often writers, old and new, get too wrapped up in thinking about what they ‘should’ or ‘should not’ be doing to write freely – and writing freely is a massive component for writing dynamic scenes. You can’t ensure a scene is dynamic until after you’ve written it, so free your mind of any rules or restrictions, stop thinking so hard about using descriptive words and sparkling dialogue and just write!

This last paragraph is what really hit home with me. You see, in trying new things lately I’ve started to really doubt my own skills and storytelling ability, and it’s stalled me. I’ve sat and stared into space or at my laptop, I’ve walked for miles thinking about what I wanted to write. I’ve gone to sleep and woken up thinking about storylines and plot holes and where I want my new project to go.

I’ve put so much pressure on myself to ‘get it right‘ that I’ve forgotten the first step in doing that is ‘get it written‘.

Funny how it’s sometimes so hard to remember the simplest of lessons.:oops:

Tweet This Post

I feel obligated to state that there will be spoilers ahead, because I’m talking about endings.

What do you think of ambiguous endings, or open-ended endings?  The big example that people are talking about right now is the ending of the movie Inception – does the top fall or not?  It’s similar to the director’s cut ending of Blade Runner — do Decker and Rachel escape or not?  The most famous literary example is probably the short story “The Lady or the Tiger” by Frank Stockton.  What happens when the door opens?

These endings are different than cliffhangers, where the story cuts out in the middle of an exciting bit so you’ll be sure to get the next book in the series.  In an ambiguous ending, the story is pretty much wrapped up — the murderer caught, the ranch saved, and so on.  But questions linger — will the hero and heroine be happy together?  How will the war end?

Cliffhanger:  In the old Buster Crabbe Flash Gordon serials, every episode ends with Flash in some life-or-death-situation — the robot he’s battling has just exploded, the rocket he’s on has just crashed, the ice mountain he’s climbing has just disintegrated in an avalanche.  At the start of the next episode, he gets out of that scrape and lands right in the middle of another one.

Ambiguous:  The story is over, but there are loose ends.  My favorite example may be the film Casablanca – the story doesn’t really have a definitive ending, but it doesn’t matter.  Ilsa and Victor are on an airplane, Rick and Renault disappear into the fog. Does anyone really wonder what happens to them next?  Does anyone really worry that Ilsa and Victor don’t make it to Lisbon and then on to America?  Does it matter that we don’t know how the war ends?  The thing I find so interesting — the film was released in 1942, which means nobody knew how the war was going to turn out.  When Rick and Renault walk off into the fog, the audience was with them.  What happens next, not just in their lives but in the war?  Nobody knows!  Nobody could know.  I think this is powerful, and that the ambiguous ending allows a story to live on in the reader’s or viewer’s mind, playing over endless possibilities, reflecting on what those possibilities mean for the story.

Another example:  John Christopher’s Tripod trilogy (The White Mountains, The City of Gold and Lead, The Pool of Fire) is a very excellent science fiction YA series that takes place centuries after an alien invasion has conquered Earth and human beings are slaves to the aliens.  Over the course of the trilogy, the main characters join a resistance movement and manage to defeat the alien invaders.  But human rivalries and politics threaten to destroy the peace they’ve all fought so hard for.  The trilogy ends with a new war about to break out, and the main characters, who started the series as boys but are now grown men, vow to continue fighting for peace, only this time among rival human groups.  It’s a powerful scene, full of depth and meaning.  Some readers might be disappointed that this epic trilogy ends with the beginning of yet another story, but I loved it.

As I get more feedback from readers, I recognize more patterns in my own writing, and I’m learning that I’m very fond of ambiguous, open-ended endings.  I don’t want to answer all the questions.  I rarely allow my characters to ride off into the sunset.  I think this is natural — in the real world, people’s lives go on even after something exciting happens, and the only true ending is death (and some people debate even that).  It isn’t possible to resolve every single issue in a character’s story.

Some examples in my own writing:  Voices of Dragons ends with my two main characters, having completed a risky gambit to prevent war between their people, flying off to discover a secret, legendary haven for people and dragons.  On the last page, they meet a denizen from this haven.  The end.  I have a short story, “The Temptation of Robin Green,” which ends with the main character sitting on a beach, pregnant, after her selkie lover has abandoned her.  In both these cases the stories have ended, even though it’s clear that the main characters will still have a lot of problems to deal with moving forward — those problems aren’t part of the story.  I’ve gotten quite a bit of feedback about Voices of Dragons especially — readers have told me this is a cliffhanger ending.  But I don’t consider it a cliffhanger — it’s ambiguous.  I do have an idea for a sequel, but I didn’t write the ending this way thinking there necessarily would be one.

An ambiguous ending doesn’t mean there’s a sequel on the way, just as a closed, definite ending doesn’t lock out the possibility of a sequel.  The ending of Star Wars: A New Hope is pretty unambiguous — we won the war, everyone gets medals!  But that hasn’t stopped endless rounds of sequels and spin offs.

What about you, both as a reader and as a writer?  Do you need all the threads of a story tied off?  Do you like the ambiguity of a few unanswered questions, or the Lady or the Tiger ending of something like Inception?

Tweet This Post

My friend Britta Coleman (Potter Springs) teaches a class called The Art of Re-Writing. I call my class Revision Hell. I suppose it’s a bit of perspective when it comes to writing. She’s one of those people who doesn’t mind how long it takes to make a book perfect. I just want to get it done. Once I’ve written that first draft, I’m pretty much ready to move on. That may be why, even though I write fast, I also write tight that first time.

That’s not to say I don’t have to go back and fluff and puff, as I like to call it. In my revisions I usually need to flesh out scenes and characters a little more. I add texture to those scenes by using the senses more. I also search for those words I use too much and I look for any inconsistencies in my characters.

In truth there are about 30 different things I’m looking for when I go through revisions from bunny trails (going off in strange directions and not bringing it back to the story) to nice nice (a conversation where nothing is moving the story forward). Revisions are a daunting task for me, which is why I take them in small bites. I usually focus on just 20 pages a day as I look for all those things, and in about two weeks I have polished manuscript ready to go.

But that’s my process. You may go about it in a different way. That’s the cool thing, there’s no right or wrong way. Wait, there is a wrong way: If you don’t do them at all.

We say you should write at least a little bit each day, and I find that with revisions too. It just makes it easier to take small patches and clean them up, rather than trying to plow through the whole thing. There are time when I do closer to 50 – 100 pages of revisions in a day when I’m on deadline, but I try to make myself stop somewhere between 20-30 at the most. I know I get tired and careless after that. Though, I do find I can do 25 pages in the morning, take a long break, and do another 25 at night without killing myself.

In truth, I love spending more time with my characters, I just don’t like having to make sure everything is polished. But I do, of course. I have some published writer friends who turn in very rough drafts to their editors. That isn’t for me. I always worry the editor will wonder, “What was she thinking?” Those writers tell me they know there are going to be revisions so why worry about it. I want to make the editors job as easy as possible so she will love me.

Like I said, turning in something really rough is not for me. During the three revisions I made myself do on the YA before turning it over to my agent, I added over 75 pages. My last Blaze I wrote, She Who Dares, Wins, I added more than 30 pages. Like I said, I have a lot of fluff and puff to do after that first draft.

There are also people who revise as they go along. I understand they want a really clean first draft, but it doesn’t work for me. I don’t want that internal editor in my creative process. That IE can make me second guess myself and there’s a good chance I would never finish a book if I did that. And honestly, I think these people are fooling themselves. Most writers don’t know how to perfect those early chapters until they finish their books. And many of them still end up doing at least one pass on revisions.

Everyone has their way of working and as I said before no one way is right. But psychologically I know it’s best to take big jobs a little at a time. You know that horrible saying, “How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time?” It’s true.

So how do you handle tough tasks? Do you barge right in and hope for the best? Do you do the hard stuff first and then the easy?

Tell me, I really want to know.

Tweet This Post