Writing Desire Vs Wasted Time

Something a lot of writers don’t talk about, so a lot of non-writers don’t understand, is the momentum around writing.  I’ve spoken previously about breaking the inertia, but I wanted to revisit the topic since it’s such an important part of writing.

As most of you know, I’ve begin writing a new novel, but I haven’t been near as consistent at it as I’d have liked to have been in actually creating content.  I know that if I’d simply written 100 words a day, rather than waiting for a stretch where I could get at least 500-100 words, I’d be much further along.  However, it’s more difficult than it seems.

Although there is obviously a greater investment in time when writing 1000 words than when writing just 100, but, in a way, it’s harder to write just 100 words.  The reason is because, and most writers will recognize this, it takes about 50-100 words to find your writing groove, so it’s easy to keep going.  However, setting a goal of only 100 makes the writing choppy.  It also sets an artificial barrier that inhibits good writing, because you tend to “watch the clock,” retarding the ideas and words you are looking for.  That can create a lot of wasted time as you look back at your choppy writing and scrap loads of stuff that could have been avoided if you’d simply spent an extra 20 minutes working your effort into something more productive.

The balance is finding enough time to get something on paper so you can progress rather than waiting for the ideal time.  I’m not real sure where that balance lies, and I’ve bene doing this for more than 12 years now.  Maybe I’ll find it by the time I retire.

100 Here, 500 There

I’ve tried writing more on my newest novel by just getting in a few words here and there, but it’s a lot more challenging than I thought it’d be.  That’s because it takes me about 100 words to get into the groove of writing(sometimes more), so I don’t feel like I’ve bene able to write well if I stop.  My work seems choppy if I do just 100-200 words, but if I can find a way to master this, I can make some progress without going two to three weeks between writing sessions.  That could be the difference between a novel coming out in a year versus a novel coming out in three.

"Not Writing"

Someone recently told me that the best thing writers do is find ways to not write.  It got me thinking about how true that is.

At heart, writers are lazy.  Breaking the inertia in writing is challenging.  Even when we manage to get in a groove, it rarely moves along as quickly for us as we’d like.  Therefore, we find ways to not do it.  And with today’s distractions – social media, video streaming, looking at pictures of cats that look like Santa Claus – it’s easier than ever to not write.

Many may say to me that since I’ve written five books, that must not be true.  After all, most people don’t write even one book, let alone five!  However, that’s non-writers not knowing how quickly one can write a full book if one truly puts effort into it.  To me, a good-sized novel is at least 100,000 words in the first draft.  I’ve done longer – many times – but I shoot for at least that much.  If it’s not 100,000 words on first look, then it’s probably not hefty enough to be a full novel after edits.  Using that end goal, know that I can write 5,000 words a day, at least four days a week, when I get in the groove.  By that standard, I could finish a full novel(prior to edits) in about two months.  Doing that every two months could get me to put out six books a year.  Many can write even faster than that.

Yet notice that I’m not putting out six books a year.  I only recently put out two books in the past year, and one of those just required edits.  So what the hell is going on?

Well, outlining can be exhausting(another blog post altogether).  Aside from my full-time job, I can peruse Facebook or watch clips from Cobra Kai if I’m bored.  I also walk my dog, workout in the gym, and like certain podcasts.  All in all, that’s a lot of “not writing.”

Don't Shortcut Your Story

I had a post earlier this month about how outlining isn’t sexy.  Unfortunately, as I’ve learned over and over and over again, outlining/planning is vital to creating a good story.  Without a plan going forward, a book will spin out of control and look more like a patch of kudzu rather than a manicured garden.  Beyond that, the more ambitious the book, the more chaotic it will be without a plan.

A simple story requires a simple plan.  Even then, you might be able to muddle through.  However, with multiple settings, character arcs, and plot points – as I’m trying to do in my newest novel – you lose threads and characters by just flying by the seat of your pants.  Perhaps there are writers out there who can blend everything together seamlessly without outlining, but I haven’t yet met that person.

So as tedious as it can be, make time to plan and outline.  And an outline and a plan can be different.  A plan, to me, is a broad overview that encompasses the whole story, but an outline is a more detailed path that can’t be laid out too far in advance or the story will evolve right past it.  It’s the difference between knowing that Rocky will lose to Apollo Creed at the end of Rocky but not figuring out his training plan or how he and Adrian end up together.  There are lots of ways to get from A to B, and those details matter.

Characters I Know

Some folks have asked how I come up with the characters in my stories.  The simple truth is that they’re based on characters I’d like to read about.  At some level, they’re based on people I know(or exaggerated versions of them).

I don’t think this should come as a revelation.  One of the maxims of writing is to write what you know.  I’ve tried branching into the unfamiliar, and it has failed every time.  My most notable example was when I started writing Wrongful Death, I initially planned to write it from the point of view of a high school girl.  However, I soon discovered I had no more insights on high school girls now than I did when I was in high school myself(that’s not to say I can’t write female characters, but just that the main character in that book needed more insight into what made her tick, and I wasn’t there).

So the characters I come up with are based around the folks I know and would like to see in my stories.  No, not every character is based on someone I know, but they’re at least familiar from my own imagination.  I know how to write what is familiar, which is why I can’t really write eclectic characters from the fringes of society, because I don’t hang out on the fringes of society.  Some might, but I don’t(I’m actually a pretty straight-laced kind of guy).  I tend to drift towards noble characters with a flaw or two and a sarcastic sense of humor.  I also like some level of bombast, so that’s what you see in those I write.  Does this make them cartoony?  Perhaps, but they fit into what I’m writing.

As you write, try to take a critical look at your characters.  Figure out what makes them tick and why they’re there.  Very few can break out of their own biases and fantasies(ask JK Rowling…her shoving Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley together was a form of childhood wish fulfillment for her).  So as you read a story, if you understand the author, then you have a better grasp of his or her characters(and vice- versa).

Provocative Associations

I’ve often said that writers should try to avoid polarizingcontroversies that tend to piss audiences off, but I wonder if that applies to associations.  I have several “controversial” associations on the right side of my blog.  Most of these are folks who make politics their centerpiece, and they range across the political spectrum.  However, in this polarizing age, their mere existence tends to piss people off.  What would the impact be of such associations?

I’m not talking about someone at the David Duke or Louis Farrakhan end of the spectrum.  Obviously I wouldn’t associate with people of such vile intolerance.  Unfortunately, anyone not squarely “on your side” is seen by those on the opposing side as the equivalent of Duke or Farrakhan, which is a sad state of affairs, in my opinion.

In the end, I won’t eschew those who take a more provocative stance in their writing and public persona than I do.  That would eliminate some of the most interesting voices in writing today.  I’m fairly hard to offend to the point of cutting someone off, which seems petty to me.  So hate me if you like for those I choose to associate with; it won’t dictate such associations for me.  I’ll continue to make those judgments for myself.

Agitation Versus Storytelling

As you write, ask yourself why you’re writing what you’re writing.  Are you trying to tell a good story?  Are you trying to evoke an emotion?  Are you trying to advocate for something?  The answer to these questions will help steer your story, as well as your audience.  But whatever the answer is, understand who you’re writing to and how your work will be perceived.

I know an author that is an awesome humor and memoir writer.  His life has been quite extraordinary, and he can put a spin on them that both humanizes him and makes his audience laugh.  There are a few underlying messages in a few of his stories, but nothing that’s too “in your face.”  They complement the stories but they don’t hit you over the head with what they’re saying.

Unfortunately, this person was not interested in sticking with humor and wanted to try his hand at science fiction.  Great!  I like to tell stories across a lot of varying genres as well.  However, instead of focusing mainly on story, he decided he had to fill in just about every page with some kind of heavy-handed woke preaching.  And when I say heavy-handed, I mean hit-you-over-the-head-with-it the way the all-female Ghostbusters or The Handmaid’s Tale did(maybe more).  Nothing fits seamlessly into the story.

Now maybe agitating for your view of the world is something you want to do.  Good for you…but understand the limitations that will put on both your story and its reach.  Folks who enjoy that kind of sermonizing may also enjoy science fiction, but the demographics don’t overlap as much as those who just enjoy science fiction, or who just enjoy sermonizing.  And when your reach is limited, don’t get pissed that no one understands you.

I went into writing to tell good stories.  Sometimes there is a larger societal point to be made, but it has to be organic to the story as opposed to the thrust of it.  What I suspect with this writer is that science fiction is outside of his comfort zone, so the preachiness that is subtle in his memoirs is all he’s really got in sci-fi.  That makes the story, to me, unbearable.

If you want to preach, preach.  If you want to tell a good story, tell a good story.  Don’t try to do both, especially in genres you are unfamiliar with but that you think sound cool  It doesn’t often work out well.

Understanding George RR Martin

For the first time, I think I understand George RR Martin a little bit.  Martin is notorious for taking his time with releasing the final two books in the Game of Thrones saga(for what it’s worth, I’d pay good money if he ended the novels totally differently than the TV series ended).  People have bemoaned for years why he doesn’t just finish up The Winds of Winter and A Dream of Spring.  What is he waiting for?  Just do it!

Well, now that I’m in the middle of writing my first truly epic novel, this one involving elements of both science fiction and fantasy, I get it(a little).  The world I’m developing is grand in scope, and the story has layer upon layer of subtlety.  The characters require development, and the world itself is complex.  I’m four chapters in, and I’m nowhere close to the main part of the story; if I don’t set the world up right, the rest of the story won’t make much sense or get the reader to care at all.

Yes, I need to just sit down and outline, and then write, but it’s not that simple.  Given what I’m trying to create, I’m trying to be careful and take my time so I can slowly build up to what is required for a total story.  I think this will likely be my largest novel, and I find myself wondering if it’ll all fit in one book(that’s one of my worries, that I’ll have to break it out into two or more after finishing it up).

So cut old George a break.  This really is a lot more involved than an outsider understands.  No, I’m not saying I’m on the level of Martin, but rather that I get the timeline he’s involved in.  Trying a grand scale of an adventure in such a complicated world takes time, and much more than most realize.

What's Sexy?

Much like it can be challenging to break the inertia writing, outlining is much the same way.  Honestly, breaking the inertia outlining is even more challenging.

Writing is sexy.  Writing is what we writers went into the business to do.  We didn’t really go into it to sit in a chair with a spiral notebook and try to play out the story in our head before writing it.  It feels like daydreaming/wasting time, and it can be annoying.  I know it’s necessary, but writing is what I want to do.  Unfortunately, if I don’t outline, I’ll hit a wall, and then writing will become both chaotic and unsexy.  Think of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition turning to an old copy of Better Homes and Gardens.  Not the way most of us want to spend our time.

Pluses and Minuses

When critiquing someone’s work, you have to try and strike a balance.  Some folks are so keen on fixing things that they’ll pick a story apart so finely that an author can walk away wondering if he or she ever had any talent to begin with.  On the extreme other end of the spectrum, and far more prevalent, are those who are so concerned with not hurting someone’s feelings that they’ll do nothing but gush positive, and the author will come away thinking he or she should be accepting a Nobel Prize in Literature.

Obviously neither of these approaches are correct.  For my negative friends, you need to also find ways to highlight some of the positives(assuming there are any…if there are not, then that’s a whole other discussion between you and the writer) so the author will know what to continue.  If it’s all negative, then the writer might abandon all elements of his or her writing, accidentally discarding stuff that might’ve worked.  Very few stories have no positives, and writers need to know what they have that should be continued and can be built on.

For my super-positive friends, writers need to know how and what to improve.  Yes, criticism can hurt sometimes – we all want to think we’re perfect – but it’s necessary.  As long as it’s not personal, a writer should be able to take it in stride and use it to get better.  If you’ve got a writer who gets bent out of shape over every little critique, find a new writer to help, for that person is not worth your effort.  Real writers want to know what’s wrong so they can make it better.  And real writers also know that they don’t have to take every criticism, but it’s better to know the criticism and to analyze its merits than to wander blithely down the road, ignorant of how their work comes across.

Balance.  Balance is the key.  Find it.  Use it.  It will be appreciated by any author worth his or her salt.

Missing The Point

I’ve often said that the appreciation of a story is largely subjective.  Every reader has a different mindset and reads things on varying terms than another person.  That’s what makes criticism so challenging to sort through – what is a legitimate critique that might make an impact, and what is just a subjective critique that means more to one person than another?

That said, it is certainly frustrating when folks read something I’ve written and completely miss the point(in my opinion).  Two that come to mind are some critiques I’ve gotten regarding Schism and Homecoming.

Schism is not supposed to take a side.  It’s a novel of a second American Civil War, and its sole purpose is to show how bad I think things can get.  It is not meant to impart a certain political point of view.  In that sense, it’s more observational than being in advocacy.  I’m not rah-rah’ing one side or the other along and trying to say that all (conservatives/liberals/anarchists/religious fundamentalists) are evil bastards who we all need to unite against.  I’m reading the political and cultural environment and trying to warn everyone that things could get really bad.  Unfortunately, a few folks have taken exception precisely because I’m not taking a side.  Some folks are so caught up in their tribal partisan politics that they’re outraged I haven’t supported them.  “We red states have all the guns and would whip the asses of the libs!” I hear, or “Those damn rightwing Nazis wouldn’t stand a chance because we blue staters are more intelligent!”  It looks exactly like the landscape of the pre-1861 battlefield.  Schism isn’t about promoting republicans or democrats, conservatives or liberals – it’s about the country going down in flames if we don’t figure out how to pull back.  The folks that don’t get that should go find another writer who will more play to their biases.

Homecoming, on the other hand, although set in a science-fiction universe, is not about giant space battles and intricate alien civilizations.  Instead, it’s a novel about how our expectations don’t always match reality, and that our past may not match the way things actually were since it’s written by those in prominence.  If you’re focused on the way FTL travel works or why there are no subtle maneuvers involving intergalactic diplomacy, you’ve again missed the point.  Homecoming isn’t “traditional” sci-fi in the way that Earthclan or Way of the Pilgrim are.  Human victory over a malevolent enemy is a given, and the other alien races are merely props in the play of how humanity reacts to discovering unpleasant parts of its past, as well as finding out that it’s not as noble of a species as it likes to think it is.  You’ve got to delve deeper to figure out which questions are being asked before you can ponder how to answer them.

I know that I’ve said such stuff shouldn’t bother a writer, but it does become annoying when folks go extravagantly miss the point of the story in the first place.  I need more of you who are deeper than casual readers to go in and see how things are written to restore my faith in the audience.  Please?

Pros and Cons of Author Interviews

I’m hoping to have two major interviews with some fairly big names in the near future.  However, what I’ve been reminded of while trying to conduct these interviews are both the pros and the cons, which I’ve detailed here.

Pros:

1. You don’t need to prepare a whole new blog post from whole cloth.  By interviewing someone, they’re doing most of the talking.  All you gotta do is ask questions.

2. You get to mix up your blog a bit.  I know people get tired of listening to me yammer on about how to develop characters or whine about how much I dislike outlining, so being able to bring in something new can spice things up.

3. Hopefully you can find more of an audience.  A writer of any talent is going to have an audience, and you want to tap into that source of people to expand the reach of your blog.  For example, the two biggest audience increases I’ve seen came from when I interviewed Sarah Hoyt and JoePeacock(in fairness, Peacock brought in the largest number despite not being as widely sold, mostly because Peacock’s fans are exceedingly loyal).

Cons:

1. Getting a yes can be tricky.  I’ve sent interview requests to more than a dozen different authors.  Roughly half have even responded.  Maybe they’re busy, or maybe I’m too low-brow.  Whatever the case, there have been numerous authors, some not even really well known, that have responded to me with silence.

2. Once folks agree to do the interview, sometimes it takes time to get back the sheet of questions you sent.  I’ve waited for more than two months on occasion.  More often than not, the author usually writes back that he or she forgot(after I send a reminder), so it takes a little longer for them to then go back and answer.  Obviously this can create challenges when you’re trying to plan out a monthly list of subjects for a blog.

3. Half your marketing is done by someone else.  Like I said above, you’re hoping to draw in more of the author’s audience to your site.  However, that relies on them mentioning their interview on their own site.  Some, like the aforementioned Peacock, were great about this.  Others, not so much.  So gaining new readers can be tricky.

Any other thoughts on interviews?  Do you enjoy them, or are they a waste of time?

Life's Disappointments

Sometimes in writing life, disappointments happen – our book doesn’t sell as well, we get a bad review, or something we spent time putting together falls apart.  It sucks when we realize that such a thing has happened to our writing life, but it’s the setbacks that make the triumphs so sweet.  As I’ve blogged about previously, it takes a dark story to justify the happy ending.  So push through your challenges, because one of the biggest differences between successful writers and failed writers is perseverance.

Well, that and talent.  Talent always helps.  ;-P