Bold Or Mousy?

On the heels of my previous post, it got me wondering about engagement with others - should it be bold and aggressive, or mousy and passive?  I know some authors like to be a little confrontational, as they feel that the controversy gets their name out there and helps them sell books.  Others are almost hermit-like in their approach to the reader and don't ever seem to respond(assuming they have anything to respond to).

I suppose that it really depends on the author and what he or she wants to achieve.  Some are naturally confrontational, while others are Machiavellian enough to try to use it for publicity.  I don't know that I fit either one.  I'll engage when engaged sometimes, but the engagement often depends on how I'm engaged.  I love to have discussions about my work, but I tend to leave the assholes alone since I see little benefit, even from publicity  Does that make me mousy(something my friends in real life would dispute in spades)?

Maybe it's something to think about a little more.  Of course, for real impact, I need people to engage with...  😋

Losing Writer Friends

Having been out of the blogging game for a while, I don't seem to have as many writer friends as I once did.  I get it - when you stop going to the bar, the usual crowd forgets you.  I used to interact with lots of other blogs, but that just hasn't happened recently, and I sometimes miss the back and forth.  I can fix this through engagement, but that takes time to rebuild.

However, I've also lost a few writer friends for other reasons, ones I make no apology for.  I abandoned one blog when the blogger decided to try and publicly shame someone for an issue they disagreed with in a private message.  I don't tolerate that kind of pettiness, so I dropped them and won't go back.  I've also argued with a couple of bloggers over stuff, some grand and some blasé.  I'd be happy to re-engage - I wasn't the one who cut off contact - but I don't grovel to anyone or beg anyone to be my friend, so unless they make a move, that relationship is gone forever.

Still, I've made more writer friends than those I've lost, and they more closely align to my personal style, story interests, and personal beliefs(the latter I don't do intentionally, but people do tend to drift towards like-minded folks, and although I make effort to talk to everyone, sometimes commonality makes for greater steadfastness).  Maybe that's not writing or blog engagement; maybe that's just life.

Grammar For Effect

I use an editor before publishing my novels.  I think any writer with a brain uses one, not only for content suggestions, but to make sure you are writing coherently.  Don't try to proofread your own work, because you'll inevitably miss stuff.  Even if you think you're the world's greatest writer(you aren't), you will miss stuff in the proofread.  I've tried it, and it didn't ever work out.

That said, there are times either I intentionally used incorrect grammar to accentuate someone's character, or I felt like the way I wrote it initially was better.  You see, when I write, I prefer for the audience to have an easy read, and formal grammar doesn't always provide that.  I'm much more into a conversational style, and while that may horrify established authors and editors alike, I don't write for them - I write for people in the masses to enjoy, and most people don't like uptight, stick-up-your-ass grammar.

Obviously don't do stupid stuff, like forget apostrophes(unless it's in a written note from a character who is known for poor writing), but a more colloquial form of communication can often gain a better effect.  It helps flow and maintains reader interest.  Some of my issues with "the classics" are that they're too formal.  Yes, I'm a heretic for even mentioning this, but style and flow matter a great deal to the reader.  A hard to read book is usually one that isn't read.

So, yes, sometimes you need to dangle those participles or split those infinitives.  Maybe not all the time, but if they conform to real-world speech, then not only do I see no problem with it, I heartily endorse such a thing.  After all, you want people to read your work, and not-perfect grammar can sometimes help with that.

Any Movie Better?

In watching Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets recently, I noticed just how much they left out of the movie from the book, such as the de-gnoming scene.  Yes, this always happens, and the trope is that the books are usually better than the movies, but it got me thinking - has any movie ever been better than the book?  I'm sure they're out there, but what are they?

I've heard about a few, but it's hard for me to comment because either I haven't read the book, or I haven't watched the movie, or both.  Claims about Blade Runner have been made, but I didn't see it(I know, I know...penance later).  Some have said Fight Club, but I didn't know it was a book(although I've seen the movie).  The Devil Wears Prada comes up on a few lists, but as I'm not a woman, I haven't seen it, and I didn't know it was a book either.

What do you think?  There have been lots of movies I've loved based on books, but I'm struggling to think of one better than the novel.

Beyond Blogging

I've written before about the slog of blogging and how to mesh that with writing my novels.  In fact, I've done that so much that I'm sure y'all are tired of it and rolling your eyes right about now, but don't worry - this isn't about that.  I mean, it's about lack of time to do other stuff, but not about blogging.😁

What I need to find time for is promotion.  Sure, my novels are doing okay.  I get a few sales each month, or at least enough that the IRS wants to hear about them at year's end, but they're nowhere near enough yet for me to do this full time(the dream of every writer).  The issue is that I'm not very well known.  Sure, I need to have talent - although talentless writers have made tons of money from writing - but finding a large enough audience is the bane of every writer.

So what I need to do is find time and money for promotion, and both are in limited supply.  Time because in addition to writing, I have a full-time job and a family; money because I'm a stingy bastard who dislikes spending what little I have.  Unfortunately, both are required until there's a self-sustaining momentum, and figuring out the path from here to there is tough.

What else is required?  Anyone have thoughts?  Or am I just sending these messages off into the ether?

Not In The Main

Most stories tend to follow a main character, with a few secondary characters.  However, I've published two novels that have no "main" character.  The plot is told through several characters, only a few of whom are even necessary to the story.  So that got me to thinking about how readers feel, and whether or not main characters are necessary.

For some stories, sure.  Hard to tell A Christmas Carol and not focus on Ebenezer Scrooge.  And Harry potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is tough to do without Harry Potter being pretty prominent.  However, Harry Turtledove managed to do it well with his Southern Victory series that followed what the world after e Confederate Victory.  Although some characters were more featured, such as Irving Morrell or Jake Featherston, they were merely vehicles through which to move the plot rather than the focus of it.

This has come up to me again as my new novel doesn't really have a character focal point.  Many of the characters are necessary - hard to talk about magic without at least one prominent wizard - but the story doesn't hang on one of them(maybe it hangs on eight of them...can there be that many "main" characters?).  My earlier novels focused on a main guy, but my focus has always been on story over people, so creating someone just to be "the guy" doesn't sit right with me.  Additionally, I'm not sure I'm all that great on creating characters that aren't me in some way, and I'm sure readers can find that tiring.

Character or story, which means more?  I'm torn, and I don't know that there's a correct answer.  Do you?

Dinner Guests

If you could have anyone from any time over as a dinner guest, who would it be?  For this list, I'm going to restrict it to writers.  The  list would change if it was unrestricted, but this is a writer's blog, so...

1.  Stephen King.  Talk about a twisted mind!  I'd love some insight into how he a) comes up with the insane ideas he does, and b) how he develops those ideas and creates the horrifying details in his stories.  Is this leftover trauma from his youth, or is he just off his rocker.

2.  HG Wells.  He was such a visionary, writing about time travel and travel between worlds when most folks didn't even understand the concept, that I want to know how he got there.  Was he an alien himself, or a time traveler?  What sparked him to create that which almost no one of his time was thinking of?

3.  JRR Tolkien.  I know life in the military, even during war, can be boring, but how bored do you have to be to invent entire new languages?  And then to decide you needed to create a world where they were spoken?  He created the fantasy genre, and I want to know how his ideas formed.

4.  CS Lewis.  Lewis is not just a creative mind, but a very deep thinker.  Being able to get his insight on life and God would be fascinating.  He wove so many deep ideas into his work, and wove them so deeply that you don't have to be religious to enjoy it.  A couple of drinks and a discussion on the meaning of life would be one of the greatest conversations I could ever have.

5.  Mark Twain.  Another man ahead of his time, Twain was also a sharp wit.  His nuanced way of looking at the world found pearls of wisdom few could even see.  I have a feeling we'd find ways to argue, if for no other reason than to test each other, but it'd be the best time of my life to match wits.

I could keep going, but five dinner guests, especially of this caliber, are probably all I could handle.  We'd have drinks, laughs, and a spread fir for kings.  The question would be each other's eating preferences and whether those would clash...

Genre Integration

My newest (non-titled) novel is a mashup of sci-fi and fantasy, and one of the biggest problems I've run into is how to successfully integrate those genres, and I don't just mean the subject matter and plot.  A rather large challenge has been which writing style to adopt.

Anyone who's read either genre knows that the writing styles are vastly different for each.  Sci-fi can be techy and much like an opera at times, while fantasy tends towards epic and grandiose.  They flow differently, and while each is exciting, switching back and forth between the styles might leave the reader feeling a but like they've ridden through turbulence.

I'm not going into hardcore sci-fi for that part of the story for a few reasons, the main one being I'm not a hardcore science/techy writer.  Not only can I not write it well, I don't enjoy that kind of sci-fi myself.  So rather than force it into a story where it doesn't belong, I'm gong to avoid it altogether.  Full on epic isn't really my style either since it's a bit too esoteric for my liking.

What I'm trying is to make the flip subtle enough where it's not jarring for the reader, but where they can definitely tell that the genre point of view has changed.  There will be more sciencey stuff in the sci-fi portions where the off-world visitors from Earth are traveling across space and using medicine or pulse rifles, and it will be a bit more magicky during the fantasy portion where the Braelish Regent has to employ his dragon corps or the pirate mages need to use magically produced wind to escape.

I haven't tried this before, so it's a challenge, and that's where I'll need input from my beta-readers when and if I ever have enough again to give to them(and they haven't written me off since it's been more than a year since they've gotten anything).  And as it can be jarring to the reader, imagine what it's like for me as the author.  I've often spoken about how the first 50-100 words is rough when starting the writing day because of the need to break the inertia; well, this is sorta like that every time I switch POVs.

If it works, it'll be my most epic story.  If it doesn't, it'll be years of wasted time...

Sitting Around Not Writing

I'm hoping to be back into my newest novel by the time you read this, but as an interviewee of mine once told me, one of the things writers do best is not write.  We daydream, we explore, and we find lots of excuses not to write.  Sometimes we're burned out; other times we truly became immersed in something else.  For me, it's finding enough ways to break the inertia and get back into the groove.

Getting into that groove is harder than people think.  As I've said before, the first 50-100 words on a new day of writing are the hardest.  I have to remember where I was and what the flow was like.  It goes in fits and starts, but once past about 100 words, it starts flowing well again, much like an unclogged pipe.

It doesn't help that I took such a long break before starting up again.  I need to remember that's a bad idea and do at least 500 words a day just so I don't get rusty.  Remember, once you go a day without writing, it becomes easier to go the next day(or 50) without writing.

Rowling With Editors

Sticking with my previous theme of editors and whether or not to incorporate their suggestions, I have been thinking a lot about JK Rowling.  JK Rowling is in the traditional publishing world, so she had to accept her house's edits...at first.  As a struggling writer out of the gate, she either accepted the edits or her book would go unpublished.  However, as her books sold more, and her fame grew, the Harry Potter novels started growing larger.  It began with The Goblet of Fire, and it became more pronounced thereafter.

Of course, it was by that point that Rowling was sufficiently powerful enough to demand the publisher retain pieces of her work they might've previously cut.  I think that has been a great thing.

Novels like The Order of The Phoenix were far more immersive with the extra heft.  I've found myself wondering what we missed in her first three books when they insisted on editing out lots of content.  Rowling herself has said she fought to keep in the chapter about the troll in the dungeon, as it lent credence to Hermione's friendship with Ron and Harry, and she's right.  What other tremendous tidbits readers would've enjoyed never made it to the stands?

Of course most writers don't have Rowling's talent, and so couldn't necessarily get away with books of her heft, but it does show that editors aren't always right either.  What I've discovered is that most editors are readers that get paid.  Yes, they have more experience, but given how publishers and editors have handled things like Steps, they aren't infallible either.  If you feel strongly about something you wrote that an editor wants cut, push back(or, if you're indie like I am, publish anyway).  You never know what readers will embrace that some folks wouldn't.

Who Owns The Work(aka - Sensitive Editors)?

Writers write; it's what we do.  And not everything comes out in a final, flowing form of beauty.  It needs to be polished, revised, and, above all, edited.  However, the editing process can be more emotional than many think.

For starters, we writers tend to believe that our work is masterful and should be good enough for anyone to see that.  It takes a thick skin to accept meaningful criticism, and it takes time to develop that thick skin.  Even proofreading can be hurtful at times since we either cringe from our mistakes, or we meant to write it in some way that looks to be in error because we think it reads better that way.

However, writers aren't the only ones with feelings that can get hurt.  Editors can get their knickers in a twist when you don't accept their suggestions.  This means less in the traditional world since the editor is a gatekeeper, and their edits tend to stand through to publishing.  For an indie writer, though, I can either accept or reject edits as I see fit, even on proofreading.

Interacting with editors in the past, I encountered some surprise(okay...shock) when I rejected a good number of their edits.  To be honest, I rejected most of the content edits unless the suggestion either made sense or was brought up by more than one person.  Still, I also rejected several proofreading edits where I felt the text read better, or I was going for something specific in why I wrote the piss-poor way I did.

You'd have thought I lit a porta-pottie on fire.

The biggest bonus to being an indie writer is it's my product.  I don't have to accept anything suggested.  I know this sounds like ego, especially in light of what I wrote above about we authors thinking we're wonderful writers most of the time anyway, but there really is a method to the madness.  I review each edit, and if it makes sense, I incorporate it.  But I know best what I'm trying to say, and I get final say.  Not all authors can say that, but I can.  And it's freeing.

Now all I have to worry about is finding an editor with a skin as thick as mine...

A Month Gone By...

So, it's been a month, and I'm still on the blog.  I've made sure to set aside specific time to write at the beginning of the month so I've got the following month laid out.  This means I a) won't be hitting a perpetual deadline and then missing it, and b) not leaving time for writing on my novel(at least in theory...I didn't do dick in December, but I'm blaming the holidays for now).

Aside from making time, the hardest part is making sure I've got enough topics of substance.  I've got most of them for February ready to go as I begin to write.  Now I just have to flush them out...