In church today, I had a great idea for two blogposts. I reveled in my brilliance and couldn't wait until this evening to write them. Then I got home and couldn't remember what I'd thought of.
I need to write this stuff down. I usually do - there's a notepad by my desk that I write down blog ideas on a sheet of paper - but I didn't have it during Sunday service. I should've just pulled out my phone and put it in the Notes section. You think Jesus would've understood? 😜
In my last post, I detailed the challenges of finding time for writing when I spend a decent amount of the little free time I have on updating this blog. However, it got me to thinking about how I spend my time writing when I actually write.
I have a so-so amount of free time during the day, but it is in chunks of five to ten minutes. It's not like I have an hour her or there. And that's the problem, because novel writing is not something that can be accomplished in five to ten minute intervals.
Allow me to explain - I can write about 1000 words in half an hour once I'm going strong. However, it takes me at least five minutes to find my groove, so those first five or so minutes is stumbling around not producing much worth reading. If I'm lucky, I'll produce 100 words worth a shit in those first five minutes, mostly because I'm trying to re-immerse myself back into the story. Think about your favorite movie - do you watch it in five minute increments? How much can you get into enjoying it if you know you have to go to another chore only five minutes in?
I think 20 minutes is the minimum amount of time I require to do anything useful on my stories. Maybe there are some out there who can do it in less, but not I. I'm going to have to re-work my schedule so I can find 20 minutes or more during the day to write, and I'll have to find the discipline to actually follow through. I guess my beta-readers will know if that works soon enough.
My goal with this blog is to stay ahead by several weeks. Unfortunately, since my most recent hiatus, I have not been able to manage that. In fact, I've been lucky to stay ahead by a few days. Life gets in the way, I get distracted, and the blog goes unattended.
The side effect of that is that my writing also goes unattended. When I do get a chance to sit down and write, I find myself on this blog rather than on my newest novel. Such a situation has led me to several questions:
- should I reverse that and ignore the blog in favor of writing my novel?
- am I using the blog as an excuse to not write like I should?
- is the blog really reaching anyone?
This is something I need to spend some time pondering. Or I could just sit down and focus on a month's worth of blog posts so that free time can go towards writing.
Pfft...free time? What a concept...
Ever try to reframe your favorite book summations to make them sound different, or even bad? Let's look at a few:
- isolated frog draws in naïve teenager and convinces him to murder his father: The Empire Strikes Back
- Foreigner uses weapon of mass destruction to take out magical leader and then steals her shoes: The Wizard of Oz
- Orphan boy teams up with two troublemakers to disrupt school: Harry Potter and The Sorcerer's Stone
- Slaveholders break the laws of physics to maintain their dominance and deprive the world of the best way to beat the Nazis down the road: Guns of the South
- Troublemaking angel sleeps with demon and prevents people from finding happiness after death: The Dirty Streets of Heaven
- Bloodthirsty alien invaders that can't control their sex drives try to pretend they're childhood icons: Quozl
- Lone crazy scientist murderers Apocalypse survivors by taking advantage of a genetic flaw: I am Legend
- Deranged idealist disrupts history and prevents legal equality for all races: 11/22/63
WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!! 😁
This article from Vox has got to be the most curious take from a publisher that I've ever read. Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster are two of the biggest remaining publishing houses. Out of what was once dozens of publishing houses, only five big ones remain. In fact, there used to be six until Penguin and Random House merged into Penguin Random House. Now Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster are looking to merge, thus reducing the total "big" houses to four. However, the Justice Department is seeking to prevent the merger, calling it anti-competitive and trending towards monopolistic practices. The suit argues that, "Authors are the lifeblood of book publishing. Penguin Random House’s proposed acquisition of Simon & Schuster would result in substantial harm to authors, particularly authors of anticipated top-selling books."
One of the strangest things in this case, though, is the argument put forth by Penguin Random House is that the industry is chaotic and that success is so random that no one company could possibly control enough market to control the chaos. In essence, they're arguing that their business sense is too incompetent to make this an anti-competitive practice.
What bullshit.
By continuing to merge into larger and larger companies, the publishing houses have a stranglehold not just on the customer market, but on which authors get selected to publish. Yes, indie books have made great strides over the last decade, but the vast majority of books are still published by one of the "Big 5" houses. These houses are so large and control so much of the market that there is no realistic way for a new imprint to compete. It's like Rumble trying to make a play for YouTube - great in theory, but since YouTube has such a large market share, Rumble isn't really a competitor(most people haven't even heard of Rumble, let alone used it). This consolidation gives virtual control over what succeeds and what doesn't. While I agree that success is never guaranteed, and I've argued repeatedly that a novel must actually be good to succeed, it's almost impossible to break in without massive resources currently controlled by the Big 5. And further consolidation gives them a vice grip on who can and can't get in, meaning that the publisher, rather than the market, gets to decide.
To me, this sounds less like going for efficiency and more like trying to enact dictatorial control over the industry. Is that good for customers...or authors? I think it will eventually harm what is out there, because why would a publisher look to be more competitive when there's no competition?
How much leeway does the audience give an author in terms of bringing out the next story? Most of the writers I enjoy tend to have about a year between books, but that's not always the case. George RR Martin, for example, has seen over 11 years elapse since his last novel in the Song of Fire and Ice saga, although he says that Winds of Winter will supposedly be out this winter. Has the saga grown stale, or has the audience moved on, especially since the HBO series went out with such a whimper?
I ask this because the novel I've been working on for more than two years is still a long way from coming out. I'd like to say it's because I'm caught in the throes of some huge plot point dilemma, but, truthfully, life has been bisy and I've bene lazy in my off-work time. Several people have read the first few chapters and been interested in continuing, but I haven't done anything much with the book in the last year except maybe belt out one or two more chapters.
I suppose I should be grateful that not many people know about it, so it's not like I'm disappointing throngs, but even with that caveat, I haven't published anything since the Spring of 2020. I don't have vast hordes swarming me for my newest novel, but one or two have asked where my latest is, and what its status is. Do I risk losing the few fans I've got by being so unproductive? Or can I appear fresh to an entirely new audience by waiting? This next novel is my largest project to date, and it will involve the most complex cover(I think), but postponing it so much leaves the audience...wanting. Wanting is okay if there's a payoff, but the longer the payoff the better it needs to be. I guess we'll find out if/when I ever get back around to it.
How much should a writer court controversy to get noticed? I don't mean in what we write in specific novels; you'll either have a gripping story, or you won't. Maybe you want to be controversial, but controversy sometimes comes with stories whether you want them to or not.
What I'm talking about is doing things outside of your writing to generate buzz and controversy. Many authors are content to just write a good story and stay out of modern bullshit because they don't want to piss off half the audience. Others, however, look to create controversy as a way to get more eyeballs. They're catering to a certain ideological or intellectual demographic, so the more people talk about them, good or bad, the better.
I'm not talking about the folks like Stephen King or JK Rowling. Stephen King often weighs in on touchy subjects in modern culture and can afford to do so since he's set. No one is taking away King's market, so he's free to say whatever he wants. JK Rowling recently entered the fray of controversy, and while many folks get mad at her, she's a billionaire who wrote probably the most beloved children's series of all time, so it's not like she'll be off shelves anytime soon(and even if she were, a billion dollars has a way of comforting the mind).
What I'm talking about are folks like Larry Correia and David Brin. Both authors are very talented, very well sold, and very controversial in what/how they choose to engage on. They are on opposite sides of the political spectrum, and neither is shy about giving their thoughts. Neither is hurting for sales at this point, but they're not household names, either. Their critics despise them based solely on their engagement of views many dislike. However, while it has alienated some potential readers, it has also expanded their bases to new folks who may not have otherwise noticed them. Good or bad?
Talking politics or religion isn't the only way to generate controversy. These days, merely weighing in on a topic is enough to create rage. Talking about a subject one side or the other has deemed evil is enough to get you branded, regardless of if you agree with the position. So is it worth it? I ask because there's a topic I've been wanting to talk about, even though it is a little out of date. Still, feelings run hot on this one, so is it a risk that can boost my career, or will even engaging tank it?
I think I'm going to bring it up for my next blog post since I can't "tank" much further. After all, can a person with no skin really feel the fire?
In the mix of work and writing, writing often gets the short shrift. I wish it didn't, but life intrudes. And it's self-serving, as well as unrealistic, to say that I can do more if you'd buy more books...but it takes more engagement to reach more people so they'll buy more books. Kinda like trying to be a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest.
If you put something out in the public sphere, you will get criticized. It's part of the game. No, those writing poor reviews don't know the hours of your time you've poured into telling a story, or how personal a bit of dialogue is to you. They know what they like, and they get to say if your work is good, in their eyes, or not.
I say this because a writer friend of mine ranted to me for 20 minutes about wanting to respond to critical comments. I told him that was a bad idea. It starts flame wars that make you look petty. Not everyone will like or "get" your stuff. That's okay. Take the criticism in stride and see if they have a point. If you think they don't, then maybe that wasn't your audience. Taste is particular.
If you can't handle people telling you your work stinks, you're in the wrong business. Grow a thicker skin or find a new occupation. Anything else is a waste of time.
When an audience enjoys something, whether a movie, play, or novel, they want more. Always. The feeling of being inside a familiar world they once enjoyed gives the perception that they'll love anything that comes out of that world. The problem is that expectations don't always match with reality.
As writers, we should be very wary about doing a sequel just because the audience demands it. Sometimes we write a book with a sequel in mind. I have a couple of books where I've left open the possibility of follow-on stories, but I also have at least one that doesn't. Schism, my best seller, is not set up for a sequel. There is nowhere for the story to go, or at least not a way that I am capable of writing or which would maintain the same audience. So I need to leave it alone.
For those wondering why an author would limit himself so, it's a matter of keeping a reputation and giving the audience books and stories that they'll care about. For the same reason there are books I've written but not released, some stories don't need new stuff - they'd be bad, and the audience would tire at that. It would also eventually hurt future stories because now the audience would look at what comes out with a jaundiced eye.
There are lots of areas where this conclusion holds. Think about wrestling, for example. The local wrestling show brings out the midgets and big-boobed women, and they sell out the arena. So the company brings them out again. And again. And again. The crowd grows bored as the novelty wears off, and soon the entire company is playing to empty arenas. In another, I love the Calvin & Hobbes cartoons by Bill Watterson. I get lost in these comics. Reading Watterson once, he mentioned he leaves a lot of material from ever seeing the light of day, and I initially felt cheated. However, would I hold the same wonder if he kept pumping out stories, only for them to be sub-par?
Many clamor for another Harry Potter book, or something new from Max Brooks in the World War Z realm, but these are not set up for new work. Max Brooks finished the Zombie War saga, so where does he go next? Harry Potter was about Harry Potter at Hogwarts, so books about his kids lack the main character, and any story beyond Voldemort lacks the gravitas of the originals.
Enjoy the work, but stop producing sequels that don't work. Your overall portfolio will suffer, and the audience will grow to hate you. Leave them wanting just a bit more, and they'll almost always come back.
People are people. Some have greater station in life, but that doesn’t make them people any less. I bring this up because I’ve seen many of my peers swoon over meeting their favorite writers(I’ve seen similar in other areas regarding folks and film celebrities). Not only does this response make you seem needy, but it also tends to weird out the person being so fawned upon…unless they’re a complete narcissist, in which case maybe they’re not the kind of person you should be hanging out with anyway(and yes, lots of celebrities are narcissists).
I’m not going to claim I’ve always been so blasé about
this. I’ve met a few famous folks(my
first being when I was eight and got to meet my favorite soccer player), and I
still slip, but I’ve tried remembering that they are no more or less than I. This helps open up doors and keep me
grounded. I can have a no-shit
conversation and not look like a total stalker(hopefully).
That doesn’t always dampen the awe, but it should keep it under
control. And as familiarity increases,
the glow of fame and status should continue to fade in favor of mutual
admiration and discussion. They are
people just like you – they’ve just managed to have more people know who they
are. Perhaps they’ve sold better or
written something culture-shattering, and maybe their experience has given them
greater current ability, but don’t let that frighten you. Talk to them like they’re human. If they demand genuflection, they aren’t
worth knowing anyway.
Okay, let’s settle an old dispute – two spaces or one after each sentence? I grew up with two spaces. Granted, as part fossil, I grew up using a typewriter(at least it was electric), so two spaces was the norm. However, with these new-fangled computers nowadays, I keep seeing that only one space is supposed to happen after a sentence or a colon.
To be honest, it doesn’t necessarily affect me – this came
about because my wife is going back to school, and there are formatting parameters
for her work. However, it got me
thinking about formatting use for books.
Is it noticeable and awkward to now use two spaces instead of one? It’s a habit now and will require significant
effort to undo my tendency, so is it worth the effort? Is it even a real thing?
As writers, we get to create whole worlds. Believe me, what you read in a book is only as small sliver of the world we’ve envisioned.
Of course, readers are interested in the story, not the entire world. Maybe there’s another story within that world
that would interest the reader, and maybe there’s not, but readers want to be
entertained with as great story. The
extraneous parts of the world you created mean little to them.
So why am I talking about those extraneous parts? Because those worlds contain characters, and
those characters wander in and out of our stories, much like people in the
world wander in and out of our lives.
However, sometimes those characters wander away and don’t return, and
audiences wonder where they went.
It’s a tricky thing writing characters into our
stories. How important are those
characters? Although a character’s
importance may wane, rendering them less likely to appear in the story, that
doesn’t mean that audiences don’t notice.
Sometimes they’ve come to care for these characters, and those
characters mean more to the reader than we as authors intended(or
noticed). My own character Gary, from
Salvation Day, comes to mind.
This is where care and mapping come in, along with multiple
edits. Removal of extraneous characters
from the beginning is required, but what if the character plays an important
role down the line, even if only for a page or two? Maybe we need to go back in and give them a
beefed up role once we notice their outsized impact. It’s one thing to kill off characters to
advance the plot, but forgetting them?
It leaves some without closure.
Sorry about no blog late last night(or last week). Trying to get back into blogging, but likely to be spotty for a bit. I'm not as up to date as I once was.
Ok, so I looked up today and remembered I hadn't done a single blog post for the month of August. I like to do most of the month in advance, but here it was, the end of July, and I hadn't started a single one. Then I looked at my subject sheet and realized I barely had four topics to discuss. Not very productive, especially when trying to get back in the saddle.
I'll do better. I promise. We'll soon see if I get a full month for August, or if life intercedes again.
I have a great cover artist. Carl at Extended Imagery has been my go-to guy since I started publishing. His first cover for me knocked it out of the park, and I've been very happy with everything he has done. That said, I'm wondering if I should find a different route for my newest work.
Granted, my next novel is still likely several years from publication, especially at the pace I'm writing it at, but the tale is much more complex than I've done before, and I think I need a cover that reflects that. This one involves, dragons, demons., magic, science, and new discoveries versus old legends. I don't know that that can be covered in the covers I've gotten so far. I might need an actual artist to draw something out for me.
Of course, that's also pretty expensive, and beyond great covers, one of the best things Carl has done is provide affordable work. So how do I figure the tradeoff? Do I give Carl the chance initially, knowing it'll cost me more money overall if I go with him(he still gets paid, whether I use his work or not), or do I venture into virgin territory and find another way to go?
Oh well, at least I've got time to figure this one out...
One of the things I've discovered while writing is the need to be stingy in introducing new characters, because such characters can be difficult to keep track of and can be incredibly disrupting. Yes, the real world is full of people, and those people don't always play by the rules you'd like them to, but I like to control my story a bit more so it doesn't get out of sorts.
With this in mind, keeping track of characters and fitting the into a story is incredibly difficult. Sometimes they make more of an impact on the audience than you think they did(Gary in Salvation Day is a great example of that...a few readers asked what happened to a person meant to be a throwaway character). Sometimes they make more of an impact on you as the author than you thought they would(Ethan in Akeldama did that for me...he was meant as a tag-along, and he ended up having a tremendous influence on the novel).
This means judiciousness is called for. New authors tend to introduce minor characters like they're nothing more than part of the setting, only to find themselves in a pickle when that character ends up doing more than they thought they would(I'm working through this right now with a character in my newest work). We have to think through introductions in much more detail, or they'll tie us in knots. Or maybe they won't and we'll just never mention the character again, only to get yelled at by readers who wonder where they went.
Both story and characters are important, but which is more important? Do the characters drive the story, or does the story develop the characters?
Some of this is obvious. In Harry Potter, the entire story revolves around Harry and his adventures. Without Harry, there is no story. Yet in World War Z, there are a hodgepodge of characters, none of which we are really given a chance to know before the story moves away from them(Paul Redeker possibly being the sole exception).
Perhaps it depends on the story. In both Salvation Day and Akeldama, the characters are exceptionally important to the overall movement of the story. However, in both Schism and Homecoming, the characters are incidental to the overall story.
Do authors have a preference? I admit that while my characters are important to me, the story is usually more important. Are others the same way, or are they more attached to their people?
How much time do any of you spend on the names of your characters? Some seem long thought through(Remus Lupin), while others seem pulled from the 4th point of contact(Jake Featherston). Should the name match the character? How important is it?
I admit that some of my names are things I agonize over. In Salvation Day, the names of the demons, insofar as they related to their function, were very important. The main character, on the other hand, was kind of pulled from just what I thought sounded good. In Akeldama, the vampire names were heavily thoght about because their names needed to match their image. Yet in Schism, I just kinda found regular names that seemed like what anyone might have.
In my latest book, one I've been working on for two years - creative concentration isn't why it hasn't been finished...I'm just lazy and busy otherwise - the names are important. The ships from Earth that find a new world are meant to reflect a much more integrated Earth than now exists. The inhabitants of the world so discovered are meant to show parts of who they are(regal, mysterious, brutal, etc). This makes writing much more involved when I have to stop and actually provide thought to a name.
The next time you pick up a book, or sit down to write one, look at the names of the characters and figure out how much thought went into them. Some will be obvious, but some will be much more subtle. Figuring out which is which can be fun...or frustrating.
I'm about to do something I initially swore I'd never do - I'm going to delete a blog post.
Now you may ask yourself, possibly while fresh in the frisson of horror, why I'd do such a thing? Don't I believe in and stand by what I've written? Did one of them suddenly become much more controversial in the light of new societal standards of decorum?
Nope, none of that has happened. What did happen is that the post in question has been hijacked. My post, from October of 2015, and titled Advantages of Indie Publishing, has somehow become a repository for a Russian browser to advertise. I know this because I check every message that my site gets, and the only comments I've bene getting for the last year or so(mostly) have been in Russian. Here are a few examples and their translations:
"Отыскать источник коннекта в сеть через ТОР практически нельзя. Благодаря интеллектуальной протекции человек сможет без особых усилий смотреть актуальную информацию в интернет сети. Интернет веб-серфер TOR соединяется hydra сайт с помощью благодаря значительному количеству удаленных серверов. Есть огромное множество умных веб-серферов, что в реальном времени предотвращают шансы атаки на персональный компьютер или телефона."
"It is practically impossible to find the source of a connection to the network through TOR. Thanks to intellectual protection, a person will be able to effortlessly view up-to-date information on the Internet. The Internet web surfer TOR connects to the hydra site via a large number of remote servers. There are a huge number of smart web surfers that in real time prevent the chances of an attack on a personal computer or phone."
"Оперативный список добавочных линков возможно запросто просмотреть в сети интернет. Как зарегистрироваться на форум ГидраUnion с ПК? Публикуется огромное число url, через которые посетитель имеет возможность залогиниться на hydra. Для начинающих покупателей бывает трудно залогиниться на торговый сайт Hidra."
"The operational list of additional links can easily be viewed on the Internet. How to register for the HydraUnion forum from a PC? A huge number of urls are published through which the visitor has the opportunity to log in to hydra. It can be difficult for novice buyers to log in to the Hidra shopping site."
"Сплошь и рядом наблюдается ламинированная поверхность фанеры особой, необыкновенной фактуры и изображения. ФОФ ламинат существует с деревянной текстурой, в виде природного камня или керамогранитной плитки. Особенностью ламинированной пленки есть не исключительно хорошее сопротивление влажности, но и наличие особой расцветки."
"Quite often there is a laminated surface of plywood of a special, unusual texture and image. FOF laminate exists with a wooden texture, in the form of natural stone or porcelain tiles. The peculiarity of the laminated film is not exceptionally good moisture resistance, but also the presence of a special color."
It goes on like this for almost 200 comments. It hasn't infected any of my other posts, and I have no idea how this one became a Russian repository. Some of these posts include links that I have not clicked on, and I would strongly advise anyone reading this to not click on them either(I have no idea what they lead to). So at the end of the month, this post disappears forever(I only leave it up for now for reference for this post), and I hope no more Russians find their way into automating comments for other weird stuff to me.
Those who've stayed up with this blog know that when I'm posing on a regular basis, the timing of the posts is pretty consistent - posts go up at 11pm HST the night before they're "out there," and they go up three times a week. I do that because I believe people like consistency, although, admittedly, that's my personality. I like to know when to expect things because it lessens disruption and provides me a bit of comfort in a chaotic world.
On the other hand, is that really the way most people approach it? Lots of folks seem to enjoy randomness. From business to vacations to nights out, people seem to enjoy the nature of ingrained chaos, so would it be the same for blogging? Do people want posts to just show up, or do they want a predictable schedule they can rely on? Anyone have any thoughts?
I posted several blogs this month that I'd had saved. I even wrote one or two additional ones. However, I must admit that looking at the calendar, and seeing how many publication dates were left in July, I'm starting to doubt I can maintain this pace. Three a week looks daunting when there are still half a dozen to go, and they need to be written from scratch.
So yes, I'm whining a little today about how much is left to do. Perhaps you're sick of it(I know I would be). On the plus side, a quick note bellyaching about what is left to do for the month also provided me with another post. 😁
Has anyone ever accidentally set up plot points for later use in their work? I've done that all the time, to the point where I'm starting to suspect that most writers do it and then pretend they just had that much foresight.
Of course there are full, point-by-point plotters out there who outline everything in excruciating detail, but I believe they're the exception. Maybe that's just arrogance, assuming most writers are like myself, with some plotting and some pantsing(ie, writing by the seat of your pants), but it seems to be most of the folks I talk to.
As for me, I plot out some stuff to a point, but then the writing, while given guiderails, is somewhat spontaneous. This can create some corners I find myself being written into, but it can also create some opportunities I didn't see when I originally envisioned the story. Take Schism, for example(spoilers for those who haven't read it) - when General Roland was fighting on the Korean Peninsula, that was originally meant just to establish both his credibility and the fact that our country was so paralyzed that it couldn't handle an external threat with all the turmoil going on. By the end of the book, as I was looking for a way to get Roland out of power without the need for a violent uprising that would execute him, a Korean Republic grateful for what he'd done seemed the perfect place for his exile. None of that was intended when I wrote the war chapters, but it sure came in handy.
Few writers will admit to this kind of stuff, but, in private, colleagues will dish on themselves. Remember that the next time you find all these intricate plot points wrapping themselves up in your favorite story. 😉
Does anyone know why there was tension between Sony and Marvel over the most recent Spiderman movie? Or why the X-Men didn’t show up to fight Thanos? Maybe Marvel’s First Family, The Fantastic Four, would be a great addition and deserve a “real” reboot.
Of course, the reason is that Sony owns those rights. But why? Why would Marvel sell off its biggest names? Well, maybe it had something to do with Marvel nearly going broke in the 1990s, and the reason why…
For those who don’t know, Marvel went uber-woke in the 1990s. They played up every niche identity group and pushed storylines involving every whacked out woke cause in existence. Great for showing what wonderful people they were, but their audience, awkward teenage boys and young adult men, weren’t into being preached at, so they stopped buying comic books. This created a Marvel financial spiral that resulted in them almost going bankrupt at one point. In trying to dig out of a hole of their own making, they had to sell off their most popular franchises’ film rights, which is how others ended up making films until Disney stepped in.
I bring this up because Marvel is doing it again, but this time with their movies. The main audience for superhero movies are, like it or not, teenage boys and young men. They not only go, but they go over and over. And they buy the merchandise. And they promote the films. Sure, others go, but this is the core audience. Unfortunately, Marvel seems intent on driving them out with the same nonsense they engaged in before.
Making everything from Thor to The Eternals to upcoming movies woke is going to end the most successful superhero franchise run we’ve ever seen. The movies have done very well, but they aren’t immune to pissing people off and driving them away. Every time somebody thinks pissing off their core audience won’t result in poor numbers just so they can virtue-signal to the public(or Twitter mob), it never ends well.
Sure, they can do whatever they want, but they can’t see the train wreck that’s coming. I can. Remember, no one thought Star Wars could be screwed up, and we saw how that ended up.
.
Although an audience should “get” your work, I think one of the worst things an author can do is lead the audience by the nose. Unfortunately, that can lead to misinterpretation about a story from time to time, and that can be frustrating. I bring this up because a few people have asked me about Homecoming. They see a straight sci-fi story that doesn’t seem to have much external tension or chance for the highly technologically advanced humans to lose, so they poo-poo’d my story. So I’ve had to tell them something I thought was obvious from the book – it’s not a sci-fi story; it’s a story about human nature and idol worship set in a sci-fi world.
For those who don’t know what Homecoming is about, it’s set several thousand years in the future as humanity returns to Earth after being driven off by a race of biological machines. Their entire history revolves around the flight from Earth and the heroic savior who kept them alive. As they get to Earth, they begin uncovering that history is a bit more complex than they’d been taught, and they have to come to terms with how that affects their own view of themselves.Author Interview with Eric Swedin, author of When the Angels Wept: A What-If History of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
First and foremost, I am a person who is easily bored. That
is my main driver intellectually. I know that it sounds almost trite, but it is
quite true. That is why my eleven published books are all over the board in
content, six are non-fiction, five are novels. I consider When Angels Wept:
A What-If History of the Cuban Missile Crisis to be a novel even though it
was published by a military history press. It reads like a history book, but it
is fiction because it contains statements that are not true. The first half of
the book that sets up the story is mostly accurate history, while the second
half is completely untrue. It is a history book from an alternate timeline and
I would argue that the narrative was the more probable outcome to the Cuban
Missile Crisis than what actually happened.
2. What motivated
you to write When Angels Wept?
Was there a particular event that gave you inspiration, or was it a
gradual realization as you became more and more familiar with the era?
I have always been fascinated and horrified by nuclear war.
As I teenager, I bought the government report on The Effects of Nuclear
Weapons (1962) at a library book sale, which included a circular calculator
made of a bottom piece of plastic with answers on it and a top piece of plastic
that rotated to show the effects of different sized bombs and how much
infrastructure would be destroyed and so forth.
These numbers had been acquired during actual nuclear bomb tests in
Nevada. I have also been fascinated by the Cuban Missile Crisis since I was a
teen, though I was born afterwards.
Some years ago, I started to read World War Z and
wanted to write a similar book, where a journalist is traveling the world
during an alternate history version of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The project
quickly morphed into a fake history book, which was much easier for me to
write, even though I had a lot of experience in writing fiction as well as
non-fiction. Oddly enough, I did not finish reading World War Z; I
greatly admired it, but it was too bloody for me, an odd reaction considering
that I then turned to writing a story just as horrific in body count and even
more alarming because it really could have happened.
3. Just how
dangerous was The Cuban Missile Crisis?
Had Nixon won in 1960 instead of JFK, how differently do you think the
events would’ve unfolded? Was there
another potential President that would have been able to guide the US through
it without blowing up the world, or would someone else have been able to avoid
it altogether through a different approach to foreign policy?
Wars often start by accident. By this I mean that the
people who make a deliberate decision to go to war have often miscalculated how
other nations will react and the possible course of the war. Rarely does a
nation start a war that it expects to lose. The Cuban Missile Crisis should
have spiraled out of control as mistakes occurred as hostile military and naval
forces rubbed against each other in efforts to intimidate their enemies. I think that JFK was the ideal president for
the Cuban Missile Crisis. He had enough
self-confidence and military experience to reject the advice of his military
service chiefs, most of whom wanted to escalate the crisis. That would have been a disaster.
Jeff Greenfield, a prominent journalist who turned his hand
to alternate history, described in Then Everything Changed: Stunning
Alternate Histories of American Politics JFK, RFK, Carter, Ford, Reagan
(2011) how JFK was almost assassinated by a car bomb after his election but
before his inauguration. This would have
led to LBJ serving as president during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Greenfield and I were in a documentary
together and had a conversation afterwards and we agreed that LBJ would have
been a disaster during the Cuban Missile Crisis. LBJ did not have the self-confidence or
aptitude to stand up to the military and take a more moderate approach. The evidence for this failing is how he
stumbled into greater participation in Vietnam in 1965 without thinking through
the possible consequences. I am not
trying to criticize the American military, their advice to the president during
the Cuban Missile Crisis is a matter of public record. One of the problems with military officers is
that they are trained professionals who know how to use a hammer and assume
that the hammer is an appropriate tool in all circumstances.
As for Nixon, that is an interesting question, I suspect
that he was a different enough president that we may never have had a Cuban
Missile Crisis and I suspect that he would have handled such a crisis
well. For all his criminal acts before
and during Watergate, Nixon was self-confident, a sure hand, and an innovative
thinker when it came to foreign policy.
4. I’ve enjoyed your
novel When Angels Wept, but I also know you’ve gotten involved in a
couple of documentaries about the events, such as What if…? Armageddon 1962 with The Military
Channel. What’s the experience of
putting together a documentary like, especially for an alternate history event?
I worked on two documentaries that were partially based on
my book. In both cases, the
documentaries were funded and created by other people and I was contacted after
each project was started. I gave advice,
responded to research questions, and acted as one of the talking heads in each
of the documentaries. It was an interesting experience and I learned a lot; I
believe that both are good documentaries.
I also did a short piece for C-SPAN.
Documentaries work so differently than prose does.
5. Moving beyond The
Cuban Missile Crisis, you’ve written several other novels, including a few in science
fiction. Tell us about them. I know authors are supposed to say they love
all their babies equally, but do you have a favorite?
I like my other novels, each of them for different
reasons. My favorite work is probably Fragments
of Me, where a person is able to fragment their mind and put copies in
other people’s minds, allowing those fragmentals to just observe or even
control their hosts. The story includes
numerous flashbacks in history as the reader learns more about this unique
individual. Seeking Valhalla is
my homage to the novels of Edgar Rice Burroughs and is set in a fantastical
version of World War II. Anasazi
Exile is a contemporary science fiction thriller. The Killing of Greybird is a murder
mystery set during a Mormon-Indian war in 1865 Utah. Survive the Bomb: The Radioactive
Citizen's Guide to Nuclear Survival is a fun little book that includes
excerpts from government documents of the 1950s and 1960s on how to build
fallout shelters and survive a nuclear war.
6. You’re a history
professor at Weber State University in Utah.
What drew you to history, and what drew you to Utah? What’s the academic environment like
nowadays?
I grew up Utah and always enjoyed reading history books,
perhaps because both of my parents were interested in history and my father had
even taught history at a high school. My
first career was in the computer field, including ten years as a faculty member
in the field, but I always loved history and science fiction. I have been fortunate enough to become a
history professor, a second career for me, and gain some success as a
novelist. I enjoy teaching history, find
researching and writing history books rewarding, and like writing science
fiction novels.
I am fortunate to do all the things I am drawn like and
make a living at them. Making a living
as a science fiction novelist is very hard (you really need to write
bestsellers in order to make enough money) and getting a job as a history
professor is also very hard (many people have history doctorates and are unable
to get full-time teaching jobs). I have
found that my fellow faculty think me odd to write fiction on the side, but I
have never been criticized or discouraged from doing so. Part of the reason for that is that I have
been productive enough in my other research to service the publish-or-perish
problem.
7. In my first
novel, Akeldama, the Mormon Church is a major player. You’ve written a book called Healing
Souls: Psychotherapy in the Latter-day
Saints Community. What has your
experience in the community been like?
I was born Mormon and remain an active member. My PhD dissertation was a history of
psychotherapy in the modern Latter-day Saint community, which later became the
book Healing Souls. My experience
as a church member has been positive, though I recognize that the friction
between religious beliefs and contemporary attitudes can irritate other people
and cause problems.
8. What other genres
and writers do you enjoy? Do you seek
out new books from a variety of authors, or do you find yourself returning to
those you’re already familiar with?
I enjoy science fiction, mysteries, historical novels, and
thrillers. Some of my favorite authors
include David Brin, Robert Harris, James S. A. Corey, Ted Chiang, and Walter
John Williams. I am always trying out
new writers, though I still enjoy the tried and true familiar writers. Other novelists that I have appreciated
include H.G. Wells, Arthur C. Clarke, C. S. Forester, Bernard Cornwell, and
Larry Niven. I also quite enjoyed the
entire Fables graphic novel series as well as much of the work of Neil
Gaiman.
9. How do you
balance your time between writing and teaching?
When it comes to writing, are you more of a planner/outliner, or more of
a by-the-seat-of-your-pants kind of guy?
Teaching always takes priority because it is an
in-the-moment requirement. I usually don’t teach with notes and often will let
the discussion and lecture go where my students what it to go, which means that
teaching is quite a creative process for me.
I am probably more of a planner in my writing, though I don’t create
detailed outlines; I do need to know where a novel is going in order to make
progress on it. Like many writers, I
have a stack of unfinished novels and short stories, and even a stack
unfinished history books.
10. Finally, is
there anything you’re working on currently?
Do you think you’ll be writing until the end?
I am usually working on several projects
simultaneously. A current project is a
history book called 1054: Year of the Guest Star. In that year a supernova appeared and was
visible during the daylight hours; the book will describe the astronomy of the
event and how that event was interpreted around the world. I want the book to be a slice of history,
describing our world during that year.
I hope to be writing to the end. My biggest regret on my demise will be the
stories that I didn’t finish telling.
What madness is this? Russ is posting two times this week? Insanity!
Anyhoo...
Like most writers, I think about my stories quite a bit. Some of what I think turns out to be terrible, but, on occasion, I have a burst of inspiration. Dialogue, action, a bit of subtle character development - it sometimes comes forth in an angelic song that readers will lap up like a cat lapping up milk(which cats really shouldn't have).
The problem isn't these bits of brilliance, but capturing them at the right time. You see, brilliance rarely occurs as I sit at my computer happily typing away on my latest novel. Sure, that happens from time to time, but that's even more rare than the brilliance I speak of. What usually happens is that it happens as I'm walking my dog...or stuck in traffic...or in the shower...
So what to do? Something that I am not often good at - I need to write it down at the first available opportunity. Yeah, I always tell myself I'll remember, but I don't. Even if my memory was as sharp as it was when I was 20, I wouldn't be able to hold onto that level of detail, or even the ideas. Smart writers put their brilliance down somewhere as soon as they can. Maybe it's in a journal, an iPhone, or even just a scrap of paper you can hang onto for later, but you need to write it down. You will not remember. I promise. I cannot tell you the number of times I've sat staring at a blank screen trying in vain to remember what I came up with just a day or two before.
Don't trust your memory. Your memory is shit. Write it down. Always.
I'm going to start to get this blog moving again, although I don't know if I can maintain the three days a week pace I had. Life is crazy, and although I love writing, I have to eat and put a roof over my family's head. If y'all would buy more of my books, then that wouldn't be an issue and I could write full time. 😉
I learned a hard lesson yesterday, one I thought I'd learned previously. Unfortunately, pain is a great teacher, and maybe this one will be painful enough for me to remember this time.
As mentioned before, I've started back up on my sci-fi/fantasy mashup novel, and it's getting exciting. The spacefarers from Earth are starting to encounter the fantasy creatures of the new world(Expandarit to our Earth people, Progenitos to those already living there), and there has even been a small battle!
Or rather...there once was a small battle.
We had an ice storm here in Tennessee recently, and it cut my power. I'd been keeping my new novel open on my computer so I could write on it when I got a small break, but I lost the document when the power got cut. Now I know what you're all saying - Hey, don't you know you can recover the document? I sure do...when it had enough there. However, although the battle had a whole new page, the recovery document didn't get that part as it was really new and not very long(like I said, about a page). So now I get to go back and rewrite that scene.
It's not all bad - I remember most of it, and it'll likely only contain a few variances, but I hate rewriting stuff I've already done(one of the reasons I get so emotional when forced to rewrite whole sections that no longer work). Still, it reminded me to save at the end of each page and at the end of the day rather than just leaving it open. You'd think I'd have gotten that down by now.
Just a quick update to let everyone know I started up again on my sci-fi/fantasy mashup. A little disrupting switching between the perspectives of the sciencey folks from Earth and the magical folks from the new world. Both sides call the planet something different at the moment, and so far I've thrown in dragons, particle beam rifles, wormholes, and even pirates. The hardest part is being patient with the writing so I can develop a mature world with a slow boil. This is my most ambitious project to date, and likely my longest novel. But if George RR Martin can do it... 😜
As I've said before, I type my blog posts into a Word document and then cut and paste them into Blogger. Last month, Blogger started running my posts in weird ways when I pasted them into the site. Well, it's still doing it.
Maybe it's the old posts. I'll write a couple of new ones and see if it continues to screw up the formatting. I can try to type new posts directly into Blogger, but, honestly, I'm kinda lazy and would prefer the easiest way(the inertia of being in one setting is comforting). All in all, that's merely a whine, but it could impact the number of posts going forward. We'll see.