How Writing is Like Slaying a Dragon

I would like to clear something up. Make it clear. Very clear. Extra super clear.

Just in case you were under the impression that I am a nerd I would like to abuse you of that idea. I use that phrase of course as the opposite of disabuse. Because I am a nerd. To narrow the definition I like video games,  computers, languages, science fiction, fantasy, board games, role playing, acting like I'm someone that I'm not, Ninja Turtles, and I took martial arts as a kid even though I'm a skinny weakling. I am a nerd.

Oh, I am a modern nerd to be sure. I love playing soccer, hiking, rock climbing, climbing trees, swimming, and the like. But I have to be honest, I think that nerds down the ages have enjoyed things outside of "nerd-dom" as well. Given the chance to play a cool new vidja game or go outside I would probably choose the game...it really depends on the day. I'm a nerd. I guess I'm not exactly a stereotypical nerd (I do fit nicely into some of the stereotypes and others slide by without even noticing me), but I don't think that most nerds are. And what's more,

"I think that everyone should nerd out about something."

I got that quote from one of my college professors when he caught me talking video games. I was finishing up undergrad with a fury at the time and I was married so I didn't do much socializing. I guess he was worried that I didn't have a passion. Good on him. Anyway, I'm a nerd.

So, now that the cat's out of the bag.

Now that that's out of the way I want to start up a series of posts that will draw some knowledge from my role playing, video gaming. These posts will come erratically, but will most likely share a similar title. I'll of course draw connections to writing, and you'll probably see quite a few other posts in between. Here are some of the wonderful topics you can expect me to nerd out about:

• Questing to be a better writer
• Adventures and Plotting
• The possibility space
• Leveling up
• Characters in a Book are not like Characters in W.O.W.
• Map drawing is fun
• Writing: A hero's journey

There is plenty of meat there for the nerd in all of us. But it's Friday, so go home and enjoy your weekend. Write every day, and be sure to nerd out about something.

What is art?

I wrote this an an answer to a question about my previous post. He asked my permission to disagree, and I want to extend my answer to any of my readers. Please, disagree. Confronting new and different ideas is one of the only ways we grow, and I am open to the idea that I might be wrong.** The commentor gave a hypothetical example of an artist who created socially abhorrent art but it filled the artist's need to express some deep therapeutic needs due to terrible circumstances as a child (the hypothetical art form was vomiting on a canvas). The follow up question was this:

"How many people need to think it good for it to be so? " 

So, without further ado, I dive into my unnecessarily long and at the same time likely insufficient answer. 

First, let's look at what art is. Art is communication or expression (I'll differentiate here by saying that expression is simply getting a message, experience or feeling out regardless of whether there is an audience. Art as expression has the process as the goal and is thus mostly for the creator. This is where the catharsis you mentioned comes in.). Art is expressed through a medium. The ancient meaning of art had to do with skill. In any medium there must be a certain amount of skill applied to create any effect.

If we take your example, vomiting on a canvas would require the me to cultivate a few skills: induction or timing of vomiting, choosing the food, aiming the vomit, choosing how to apply the vomit (is it projectile, is the artist simply lying down and letting the vomit roll over them), creating or choosing the most suitable canvass. These skills are developed aside from the expression. I can draw a line, but a true artist knows where to place that line to communicate an emotion, an experience, or an idea.

Also, I am going to limit the definition of Art to an intentional expression if that's ok. I can throw a number of sticks on the ground and someone could interpret them, but if I had no intent to communicate then it's not art. It may have natural beauty, but it's not art. If someone captured the moment by photograph, painting, literature, dance, etc. then the expression would be art. A beautiful sunset is not art, the communication of a beautiful sunset is. If there is no intent to communicate (or express) then it is not art.

Now let's look at your assertion there are no objective valuations to art. I could probably take your side on this, but I want to make sure that we cover the whole issue. You can look at art, whether you like it or not, and appreciate the skills required to create it. You could even apply those skills unartistically (remembering that art is an intentional creative communication of a message, mood, idea, experience, or feeling). I could play the notes of a piano concerto, if I had the skill, and it would not be my art but the composers. A copy machine does not create art, it merely duplicates it. However, a concert pianist could use their skills to present the concerto and include their own artistic expression in the performance.

This valuation of skill is separate from the aesthetic valuation of beauty. We can take this pretty far and say that the valuation of skill is also subjective. When cutting a log do you want straight lines or curved lines. If you want curved lines and your worker can only make straight lines then you may call him unskilled. I am not going to go that far. I will say that a skill is good if it meets the requirements of the project.

If you are trying to recreate the Mona Lisa with vomit then any vomit that doesn't look like Da Vinci's work is not successful. Taking a more mundane example, I have not the artistic skills to recreate the Mona Lisa by painting, drawing, or any other way. But I could develop the skills, theoretically, if I practiced and studied enough. As an example, I wrote a scene that I wanted my readers to feel excited about. When I got feedback I found out that my readers were confused and didn't understand the scene. The objective view is that my skill were not enough to complete the task. In that sense, my art was not good.

So, we have the skill side of art. Am I, as vomitist, skilled in achieving my goal? I have achieved catharsis, at least enough to keep me alive. I have spewed my hate, terror, frustration, anxiety, and wrath onto many a canvass. Most people who look at my art feel a repulsion. Is their repulsion exactly what I wanted? Are they feeling repulsed and now somehow they understand my message, or are they merely repulsed at the medium and so the message fails to penetrate? If I wanted catharsis, then my work succeeded. If I wanted someone to understand me, then maybe not so much. If I simply wanted my audience to be repulsed, then I have sufficient skill and achieved success.

However, the judgment of how aesthetically pleasing a work of art is falls completely to the subjective view of the audience. Good or bad. This is where “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” comes in. A piece of art can be good or bad to any person, and this is where numbers don't matter.

Now, one more level to this madness, we can also take in the popular success of art. This is where the artist considers audience. Evaluating an audience is also a skill, though most artists keep it in the background. The popular success of an artwork depends on how the audience perceives it. If 100 people think your book is good, does that make it good? The truth is that audience perception has a lot to do with how many people receive your message. I would argue that good art resonates with more people. If you are turning people off of your message with your medium so that they can't appreciate the message, then I think that it is bad art. If the purpose of your art is a self expressive catharsis, then no audience aside from yourself is needed. It is personal art, and unless you intend for someone else to take part in it then I'd even go so far as to say it is not art, but therapy. Personal expression is a positive and important thing, but it only sends a message when there is someone to receive it.

My argument before is that many who study art extensively take their view of the aesthetics and ignore the skills. I might hate the Mona Lisa aesthetically, but I can't dismiss the fact that it took a highly skilled artist to create it. An literature professor may dismiss the Harry Potter series as trite nonsense because they don't like it. They could judge it as bad. But they should not ignore the fact that it has reached a large audience who has been affected by the books and their message about death. What I view as a problem is that many “art snobs” do just that. It is fine that they don't like something, but if they're really studying art then they should be able to admit the quality of the skill.

So, here's my answer in a nutshell. Good art can mean that the artist is skilled at manipulating the medium, it can mean that the message or experience is shared, or it can mean that the art is beautiful or aesthetically pleasing. I would argue that the larger an audience can relate to the piece as intended the better the artwork is. This requires both the objective skill(i.e. the ability to draw lines with the intended effect), and the subjective application of that skill.

This was a long post. I droned on forever. Did I miss the point? Sometimes I do that. Did I mess up the definition of art? What is art, and what makes it good? Am I right? What do you think?

**Edit - this should read: I've got a big ego, and sometimes it needs a bit of draining.  Cheers.

To Agent or not to Agent?

Once you've written a book and you want to get someone to read it (besides your kid sister) and possibly give you money for your hard work and tears. So what now?

There are plenty of proponents for e-books, self publishing, and doing everything yourself. Should I try to get published with a big publisher? Should I get an agent? Should I submit directly to the publishers? Should I sell my book online and forget about both agents and publishers? Should I publish myself and spend my time selling the book on street corners? Should I start up my own publishing company?

These are some common questions. Though the last two may be less common. Today I'm going to share my views on the agent question. Should you get an agent?

For starters we should figure out what an agent is. The very idea of an agent means someone who does your work for your. A literary agent is someone who will do just that, in theory. Currently a literary agent will go out and represent your book to big publishers. A literary is not giving you a product, they are providing you with a service. In the current market you shouldn't be paying your agent up front. Instead you pay your agent a percentage of the money they get for you (Usually anywhere from 10-15%). In this sense an agent is good because they'll be trying to get more money for your book.

A publisher, on the other hand, is not an agent. A publisher is also a connector, but they aren't just representing you. A publisher is providing a product, the hard bound or electronic version of the book. They are licensing (or purchasing) the right to use your words. With a publisher it's also a joint venture. They want the book to succeed as well. The difference is that the publisher usually pays the writer, you, a portion of what they make off of using your words on their paper. And just like you don't want to give all of your money to the Agent, the publisher doesn't want to give all of their hard earned money to you. Usually the publisher has the upper hand here, so an agent also represents you in bargaining with the publisher.

In both cases, the agent and publisher, one of the things you are paying for is connections. Theoretically you could do all of this yourself, but the publishers and agents are levying their specialization to take the workload, and some of the money, off your plate.

Let's look at it this way. For my chosen genre, sci-fi/fatasy, it is highly recommended to get an agent. Many of the bigger publishers won't accept submissions without agents, and even when the do it goes to a slush pile. If you want to see a movie and you've got 5 to choose from but you've never heard of any of them the choice becomes much easier if you have a friend recommend one of them. If you've taken that friend's recommendations a number of times and been pleased every time then even more so. Now take that list out to 1000 choices and you see what a publisher has to face. As a writer you're like the movie company trying to get the publisher to check out your stuff. A good agent is like the friend that makes the good recommendations. I still send to some publishers, but mostly I'm looking for an agent.**

Why?

For one thing I don't have the same connections. For another I don't have the capitol to print 1,000,000 copies of my book. With the advent of the internet e-book and e-readers I may not need either. That's still up for debate with some heavy hitters on both sides. So the question still stands.

Why an agent?

Well, here's the one thing that I can't get. An opinion. I mean I've got plenty of opinions. But professional validation of my work means a lot to me. An agent who reads and represents books to publishers for a living knows something about what makes a book successful. A publisher who buys and sells books in a desperate gamble to make some money also needs to know something about quality, or else they are soon an ex-publisher.

I can e-publish my book and get validation from the readers (which is the end result I want anyway), but I have to convince a thousand people to read my book and respond. If I can get the half dozen people from agent to publisher to read my book and respond positively then I have professional validation. To me that means the same thing, but I didn't have to wait for 1000 people to find and read my book. Publishers and Agents may make mistakes, but if I have their validation then I can have some idea that I'm on the right track. (Again, this might be undermined by the e-book phenomenon, but I still hold publishers and agents in esteem for now.)

I have currently chosen to pursue publication with a traditional publisher, and I am seeking the representation of an agent. I don't want to send out my work unless it is good. I don't want the whole world to read my book if it doesn't meet a basic level of quality. Don't get me wrong. There are crappy books published both traditionally and as e-books. Proponents of e-books use this to downplay the importance of traditional publishers as gatekeepers. I'm not talking about other books. I want my book to be the best it can be. Could I e-pub? Possibly. That's a question for another post.

**I should of course make the qualification that Agents can also be that bad friend that Publishers duck behind the copier to avoid. Good agents have a good network and publishers that trust their recommendation (and so they will only recommend you if they think your work is worth publishing). Good publishers will only publish something they think will sell. You can be your own agent if you want to go to the conferences, keep up on publishers weekly, make your own connections. It's a personal choice, but I've made mine.

Ignorance is Bliss, but Knowledge is Not Sorrow

In my last post I spoke, perhaps a bit too harshly, against the artistic elitist. The main point is that there are many traits that make good art: Skill, style, social perception, contemporary work, personal opinion, etc. The trouble comes when someone puts personal opinion (a subjective valuation) above the other objective valuations.

One of my readers wisely observed that one aspect of good writing is knowing your audience. That is absolutely true. Writing to please your professor doesn't make your work good. On the other hand, writing something that is popular (which your professor wouldn't like) doesn't make your work bad. Writing something that is good makes it good, and there are subjective and objective traits that go into that.

When I first started studying I had a hard time with this. I think it's a pretty common journey. I was a young theatre student in undergrad and I am easily impressed by big words and "smart" people. Those two traits together worked against me to some degree.

I started to learn about writing. I breathed it all in like I had been holding my breath for years. I had just changed my major from a pre-med biology degree and I was astounded to learn that people actually wrote and created art (particularly theatre) for a living. I had been mostly indiscriminate in my consumption of art...well I say that, but it's not exactly true. I had been exposed to a wide range. I liked a wide variety of popular art, but I wasn't a big fan of art for the sake of art. I never liked obtuse art. (To be honest, I still don't have a refined artistic palate.)

But as I learned about what makes a play "good" I picked up a bit of my own elitism. I narrowed my view of good to exclude many of my previous favorites. Suddenly I was too smart to enjoy popular movies, musicals, etc. I echoed the sentiment of one of my professors that, "Les Miserables was the worst thing to happen to the theatre". Though I didn't know why. I started to seek out more and more obtuse material to challenge my concept of good.

Now, broadening my horizon was not bad, but I became a terror. Because I had a bit of knowledge and I thought I knew everything. I began to judge what I saw or read much too harshly. I forgot how to enjoy something and I focused on tearing everything down. My wife hated discussing (or even watching) movies with me because I continually berated everything we saw.

I think it's common among students to apply their knowledge. What else can you do? But I started to think that criticism was the only worthwhile endeavor, and I only listened seriously to other people who could tell me how bad something was. We enjoyed only the obtuse and exclusionary.

Then something happened. I took a class and I began to tear apart Shakespeare. Shakespeare!

I was unabashed in my criticism, but I was wrong. (To be fair, Shakespeare wasn't perfect and there are some viable reasons to dislike his work.) I realized that I wasn't enjoying anything. I had learned so many ways for something to be bad that I forgot that anything could really be good.

Fortunately I had my eyes opened. I started to look at popular art for fun again. I found that sometimes unabashed emotional fare is nice. Sometimes an easily understood message hits just as deep.

I had left behind some of my ignorance when I saw how the magicians did their tricks. I found out that sometimes God works through normal means. I learned that my parents were Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and Leprechauns. My immediate reaction was repulsion. But when I managed to step back I realized that just because I know how magic is made, it doesn't mean I can't enjoy the show.

I began to love theatre again, but now with a deeper knowledge. I still have my own opinion, and sometimes I'm still a pain to watch certain movies with. But I've begun to mellow. Learning about an art form does take some of the magic away, but it opens you up to a whole new kind of magic. Knowledge is freedom, and it kind of misses the point to use that knowledge to oppress others by telling them their opinions are worthless.

I love the Fantastiks, but I can still love Les Miserables (which I do, by the way).

Aspirations to Art

My sister-in-law once asked me about literary writing. She had read something a friend had written and just wasn't impressed. The story seemed depressing and somewhat pointless. There were interesting ideas, but none of them were really explored. And in the end my sister-in-law felt unsatisfied. She wasn't alone. It was a pretty common response I think.

I read the work, and I came away with a similar feeling. The story was depressing and somewhat pointless. But for me there was deeper matter that I could get at. Some obtuse entertainment that was lost on most readers. Some part of me enjoyed the word smithing, the chiaroscuro of words.

So what was there in this story that chimed for me and not for others? Well, there's a bit of that high minded literary writing.

I'm not necessarily smarter than my brother's wife. In fact, there are many ways you could argue the opposite. But I've been trained to enjoy certain things from writing. I've been exposed to the study of the art, and as in most cases, I can see things that people who haven't studied writing just can't. It's similar to any field of study. **

There is an idea in writers, writing professors, poets, literature students, and all sorts of "intellectuals" that they are in some way better than other people. It's a common theme among any artistic mediums. Pretensions and elitism. The basic claim that, "I've studied and so my opinion matters more. If you can't understand my art, then you are a lesser being."

In film you have the Oscars and above that there are art house films. In visual medium such as sculpture, painting, mosaic, etc. you've got modernism, post-modernism, and many other -isms. The same goes for theatre. Music has it, dance has it, fashion has it, video games, and if we find a new medium that will have it too.

Now here's the big question.  Is the writing in the Literary Genre better than the writing in novels or stories that are more accessible?

Here's the big answer. Sometimes.

Most literary writing is a practice in pretentiousness. Writers who are writing to show off their supposed skill to other writers, or to impress their professors (who would likely never be impressed anyway because they are jaded by their own jilted works). Writers throw in shocking content to show that they can 'handle' heavier material. They explore the depths of depression and claim that they have some greater understanding of the world. But more often than not it is simply obtuse and they claim that anyone who cannot understand is simply unintelligent. After all, if anyone could understand it then it would be....gasp....popular.

And herein lies one of the conundrums of art. Art is an attempt to communicate, and often times a true artist can communicate feelings or ideas beyond what the uneducated in that art form can grasp. But when a piece of art becomes so obtuse as to exclude a wider audience then in some ways it fails at communicating.

Now look at the other side. Is all literary writing bad? Absolutely not. Is all popular art good? Absolutely not. As a culture moves forward with a medium they will begin to accept some traditions and reject others. Entire societies change and grow with their art. Nearly every work will include one audience and exclude others.

In some cases the literary works will be good. In other cases it will simply be pretentious. In some cases popular art will have some actual merit. In other cases is will simply be pandering.

I'll probably come back to this eventually. I think that next time I'll talk about my critical journey through theatre. I lost a lot of enjoyment in art.

Until then. Keep writing, reading, or whatever it is you do, and be great at it.

**
As an example take this fine Chemistry joke: If you're not part of the solution, your part of the precipitate.

Adverbs and Adjectives the Great Big Fish Said Monotonously

After reading the first few pages of  my manuscript my writing group targeted in on one weakness. There were others, but this was the first burr to be filed away. That weakness?
"-ly"

Adverbs are a tool in the expert writer's toolbox. However, Adverbs are also a tool in the novice writer's toolbox. And since the novice writer has less tools, we make use of our paltry supply a bit more often. Adjectives are in a similar box. Both of these modifiers have their place, and many new writers don't recognize that place. In this post I'm talking about adverbs.

I count myself among those novice writers, though perhaps less because I have had my weakness pointed out to me.

--I want to digress for a moment to talk about weaknesses. No matter how often we are told something, we will never accept it until we are mentally prepared. In developmental psychology we talk about scaffolding, schema theory, and i+1. I've heard about adverbs before, but I was never in a state to receive the information in any useful capacity. Learning to write, like anything else, is a process by which we slowly move forward gaining new insights and picking away imperfections as they push themselves to the surface like the chip of an eggshell caught in the white of your egg. It takes time to become a master. We should accept our current level and at the same time push ourselves on to the next.--

Back to adverbs.

Reading a sentence in which a squirrel, "ran quickly away from dogs" may be more interesting than "ran away from dogs." But the adverb is covering up the weakness of the verb. We can turn to the cabinet maker for an analogy. A veneer in woodworking is a thin layer of wood that is glued to the surface of another wood to change the appearance. You could, for example make a pine chest look like a teak chest. Many people like the thought of teak furniture. It's a harder wood. It's more expensive. It may be required to maintain social status. But if you just make a teak chest, then you won't need the veneering. Adverbs are the English language's veneer for weak verbs.

If we take this analogy a bit further (though not too far, as we know that any analogy breaks down when applied universally) then we can ask, "Why use a veneering at all?" That's a good question, and it applies to adverbs as well. A hardwood chest would be heavier than a softer wood, it's cheaper to use veneer, etc.

Adverbs have their use, but more often than not you may find that choosing the right verb will better serve your situation. As an exercise I searched my entire manuscript for "ly" and changed as many as I could. But how?

It may be better to say that the squirrel scrambled, scampered, dashed, bolted, zipped, darted, skittered, or any number of other verbs. This is great when writing fast paced action scenes where each word can cost you the entire scene. Alternatively you could describe the action that the adverb is intended to replace.

"They warily prodded at the wooden barrel." could easily be described as, "They first tapped the wooden barrel with the ends of their walking sticks and, when nothing happened, slid across the last few feet to examine it with their fingers." One sentence is simpler, lighter. While the other draws you further into the action. Which one is right? Unfortunately it depends on your goal for the scene. More often than not you'll want more immersion.

Use an adverb if necessary, or if you feel that it adds a flavor that you want. There are plenty of reasons to use adverbs, but just as many or more to avoid them. I'll leave you with some quotes.

"I think my mistakes were kind of common - leaning on cliches and adjectives in the place of clear, vivid writing. But at least I knew how to spell, which seems to be a rarity these days."

-Dick Schaap

"I adore adverbs; they are the only qualifications I really much respect."

-Henry James

And of course:

"The road to hell is paved with adverbs."

-Stephen King

Aaaand...Action!

Wow, there's a lot to say about writing action scenes. I mean really, a lot. And those are only three of the 907 million websites that google brought up for a search on "writing action."

To be fair, even though google does an amazing job (even scary sometimes) of knowing exactly what I'm searching for I'm pretty sure that all 907,000,000 of those sites are not completely relevant. And I'm sure that most of them cover pretty much the same ground. But it's an important topic that writers can stand to keep in mind.

And so here am I.

Writing action is essentially the process of tapping into our readers' fight or flight instincts so that they can:

1. Have a primal physical and emotional reaction to our writing and thus become more connected to our story.
2. Experience a bit of concern for our characters and thus become more connected to them.
3. Stand up an cheer at our characters' ingenuity, skill, or luck and thus become more connected to them.
4. See that the stakes for our characters are high and can be lost and thus become more connected to them.

Hmm....I think I see a pattern here. Though there are other reasons to write a cool action sequence one of the primary outcomes is a connection to character that we would not get otherwise. When I survive a brutal car wreck with my character, I bond with them. We've got something to talk about. Only they never talk back anymore.

So, how do we do it. I'll keep this short with a few points to think about and I may come back to this topic more in depth at a later date.

First, acting is reacting. This is a concept that I learned in theatre and it has served me well. It is echoed in this sentiment by Colin Powell, "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy." Action scenes are made up of planned actions as they come in contact with the unplanned events. Write these reactions. In fact, you can get a long way if you simply write out each party's reactions to the other's. 

"Dan hit Billy in the face. Billy rolled with the punch and kicked out with his left foot. Dan felt Billy's foot connect with his groin and the pain spread from there throughout his entire body. He fought the urge to wretch as he crumpled to the ground in pain. Billy watched Dan fall to the ground and let out an audible sigh. The fight was over, for now."

Of course this can become very sterile and boring like the fight scenes in the movie Far and Away before Tom Cruise's character shows up.

Another tip to keep in mind is to  be aware of the modifiers (e.g. adverbs and adjectives.) you use. Action scenes are supposed to move quickly. Cutting out unnecessary adverbs and adjectives can help to focus the reader on the action. Instead, concentrate on picking just the right verb or noun to convey the message. Instead of hit say slammed, pounded, crushed, etc. I'll talk about adverbs and adjectives another day.

Finally, keep the pacing up by focusing on the action. In a real fight, car wreck, accident you won't have enough time to look at the pretty flowers. That would be ridiculous. Douglas Adams uses this great effect by letting us in on the ponderous thoughts of a sperm whale as it falls to the surface of a planet. So keep most of your description for other scenes and during an action sequence try to imagine what your characters would notice.

Action scenes can be fun to write and read, but they can also be dreadful. Above all, make sure that when you read the scene YOU are interested the whole time.

Have fun writing.

Music in books: Continued

To start off, this post is a continuation from yesterday's. But the real story is that I was reading the work of one of my fellow writers in my critique group and I got to wondering how to put music to the page in a story. There are a few ways to handle music in books. I've seen plenty though I can't remember all of them. Here are a few:

• J.R.R Tolkien - The Hobbit (and I guess the Lord of the Rings is also similar): Tolkien shares long, wonderful, and lore filled lyrics. But he bookends them heavily with the reactions of his characters. Especially useful here is his line from The Hobbit "...this is like a fragment of their song, if it can be like their song without their music." 
• Lord of the Rings: I think it's handle in a similar manner, but I don't remember specifics.
• Terry Brooks - The Wishsong of Shannara: The wishsong is used in multiple books as a type of magic. I don't remember specifically, but I think that lyrics are eschewed here in favor of effect. Saying things like, he sang them a summer day. (That's not a quote, just an example of type.)
• Alan Dean Foster - Spellsinger series: This is a comic series and uses the same method of description of effect rather than lyric.
• Piers Anthony: I don't recall the title of the book, but one character performed magic by creating and singing rhymes. The rhymes were all one or two lines, so they hardly count as songs. It was easy to read and didn't detract from the narrative because it was part of the fun to see what rhyme he could use to solve each problem as it came up.
• Frank Herbert - Dune: In this he distinguishes poems from songs. The poems are somewhat longer as I recall. He does give us a short bawdy song. The lyrics are well made and fit the scene, but they are easily skipped.
• Garth Nix - Lirael: Nix is a wonderful and inventive storyteller who uses music as a part of his magic system again. This time there are no lyrics, only music, so he can focus on the effect.
• C.S. Lewis - The Magician's Nephew: One of my favorite uses of music in a book is found here when Aslan sings Narnia into being. A wonderful scene in the book which again focuses on effect without lyrics. 

That's a very small sampling, but includes some very fine books. I'm especially fond of Garth Nix as a writer because of his unique voice and style.

Now here are my ideas about music:

It's all about effect. I have rarely read a poem in a novel that has moved me the way they book says it moved the character. And let's be honest, if I heard the music from this foreign culture it might sound really bad to me even though it was supposed to be a moving ballad. The strength of a book is the ability to describe characters thoughts, feelings, reactions.

If I have a bard singing a song and I say, "The youth of the village gathered around her with wide eyes. They sat drinking in her music well into the night and rebelled at their parents insistence that the dying embers of the fire pits meant that they must leave their listening seats." Well, now you know what the music did. If I told you the name of the bards song was an epic poem called "The eternal battle of Veras and Nir." you might be interested in the poem, but it probably wouldn't have the same effect on you as the children in the story. You don't have the haunting tune, the slow tap of the minstrel's hand upon the belly of her lute, or the perfect variations of her voice.

In short, you may have a wonderful poem, but it will never be music. As Tolkien said, "...if it can be like their song without their music."

So here is the fix. Figure out your goal. Do you want to wow your audience with your poetic ability? If so, then practice your poetry. Learn how to really write a poem. Learn to craft words so precise and powerful that the reader cannot help but drink them in. But be aware that any poem will break the flow of the story. Make sure that the words of your poem fit your world, and the skill level of the in story writer. The poetry should draw a reader further into the story. It is no longer a stand alone piece of art, it must be powerful in conjunction with the prose.

If your goal is not poetic greatness, then think about how much of the poem needs to be in the book. Often one or two lines will be enough, especially if those are the lines that mean something to the characters.

If your goal is to create a sense of music in the scene, think of the words that you use in your prose. Lean on your poetic skills in the way you craft your sentences. Look at what that music does to the world in your book. Music is powerful. Show us what happens when your world has it. Show us how the singer halts in tears each time the chorus returns to his children who were lost in the fire. Show us how the heroes rise up in response to the anthem of their comrades as the music echoes through the mist like a brigade of long lost friends.

Show us what the characters think of the light brigade, because we may not know what that means.

BUT! If you want to expand your world and give it depth, then write your songs. Build a story around the song that is so full that your readers want to know it. Put the lyrics right there on the page, but be aware the readers can skip it. I have never felt like I am missing something by not reading the words to a song on a page, but I have read a song on the page an felt like I was missing the meaning. Poetry takes training to read and to write. I love me some good old fashioned poems, but the only poems that I read in books are the poems that are books. I read Shakespeare. I read Homer. And I will read your poem, but only if the story was good enough for me to go back and want to find out what I missed.

Put your poetry in, but be aware that it can be skipped. If it can't be skipped, then have your character analyze it. We are reading what your character thinks, senses, and cares about. If you want to break down a poem so much that we really read it, then have your character really read it. As your character comes to understand the meaning (this is often done with prophecies) so will we.

Wow, this was long. So, I'll sum up.

• Focus on effect, and then put your lyrics in if you want. 
• If the lyrics are important then have your characters recall or think about them often. 
• Don't sacrifice the story for the poem. 
• If you have to choose between story and poem, then choose. Publish a poem if that's the most important part. Otherwise, give us a good story. 
• Don't confuse music with lyrics. 
• Lyrics and poetry have power, but they are different from music.

Good luck, good writing, I'll see you again tomorrow.

Mini Post: New Feature

I'd like to announce the creation of a new feature. Take a look at the link to the right for Literary Portraits.

Ever wonder what you'd be like in a novel? Let us immortalize you or a loved one in a personalized description fit for a main character (or a plucky side character if you prefer). Take a look and get yourself immortalized in the written word.

The concert was today? My father's gonna kill me!

The title to this post started off with a quote from a childhood film. If you don't get the reference then it probably won't do any good to explain, so I'll just jump into the meat of this post.

Music.

There is plenty of music in the world today. I think that's a good thing. I like music. I love the almost mystical power it has to move us directly to an emotional state. Really if you think about it, that's the power of music. But why? How? How is it that sounds cause an almost universal reaction? My son was playing a video game and he said, "Dad, this part of the game kinda makes me want to cry because of the music." Bing! Right on son. You have discovered the manipulative tool. And it's not just melody. Rhythms can increase or decrease our heart rate. Harmonies or dissonance can make us nervous or relaxed. And I'm sure there's more that I don't even know about. What am I saying? If you want to experience real life magic where John Williams is the musical equivalent of Howell Jenkins, then get into composing. This music is powerful stuff.

So, what does this have to do with writing?

Well, if music is such a powerful facet of the human experience then we want to tap that. We want to capture the experience that music brings to our lives in a way that shows its power. But how do we do that? One of the strengths of music is that we can experience it as a background to anything else we are experiencing. Working out? Put on some music. Watching a movie? Listen to the soundtrack. Having dinner? Throw on some tunes. Driving down the highway? You get the picture. As an experience, music ties itself to whatever we are doing in a non-invasive way. With few exceptions, we don't listen to music just for the music's sake (this is not always true, and enjoying music on its own can also be a powerful experience). Music is magic funneled into our ears and through every cell in our body that feels the vibration of sound waves.

Unfortunately, when reading a book we don't have sound. Books don't have the sheer aural power that even one single note can bring. We can read the book out loud, but the magic of books is in the words, not the music.

This causes problems for writers in a few ways. First, since we can't draw on the aural strengths of melody, rhythm, syncopation, harmony, disonance, etc., we often rely on lyrics. I mean, lyrics are words right? All I have to do is put the right words in and my reader will be drawn into the song, right? Wrooooong.

In novels, at least the novels of today, we don't write in poetry. Our entire purpose as authors is to draw our readers so far into our words that they simply absorb the experience. Poetry, though writing, has different goals. Poetry is all about imagery, rhythm, and hidden meaning. We can use all of those tools in storytelling, but when we switch from engaging prose to occlusive lyric the sudden shift in style can jar us out of the experience. In my own reading, when I am presented with lyrics or poetry (especially when not directly necessary for the plot or story) I skip it. I jump down to the next line of prose and say, "What next?" Now this is not always the case, but more often than not it is.

So how can we harness the power of music in our stories? How can we limit the jarring effect of lyrics? I've seen it done before, and in the next post I'll posit a few ideas of my own on how we can use music in our books.

Books to Movies

The process of writing a book is very similar to the idea of creating a magical scroll. The words on the page are inert until a reader pronounces them (either verbally or in their mind), and then suddenly the conjuration begins. The words form pictures and images unbidden in the reader's mind. The dismal planetscape or lush jungle stake out immovable claims in the reader's psyche, crowding out space that might be better used for other more intellectual endeavors. The symbol and spell is complete and the reader now bows in some little part to the mind control of the writer. Ooh, I think I just spooked myself out a little bit.

What does this have to do with movies? Well, I'll tell you.

Movies based on books are often panned as poor attempts to cash in on an intellectual property rather than holding any artistic merit of their own. Though things have changed a bit over time, I often heard the phrase, "The book is better than the movie." It wasn't until I was in 9th grade that I heard someone say of then popular Jurassic Park, "What? No way. The movie was way better than the book." I disagreed, but instead of dismissing my friend's comment as the ramblings of an unintelligent mind lacking creativity I had a thought. Someone could think that a movie was better than a book. This was a world shattering revelation to me.

Some time later the Harry Potter books came out, followed by the films of the same designation. Talk about public outcry (though not enough to stem the ebullient flow of cold hard cash to deserving series creator Joanne K. Rowling). I knew many people who watched the movie numerous times (see cash statement above) to point out how poorly the movie had been adapted. How the very core of the book had been torn apart and lost in the film. The writer's mind control had been challenged in the faithful readers, and the readers gathered their pitchforks in defense of the images and ideas now firmly rooted in their souls.

The revelation that these two experiences gave to me was quite simple, and you may even laugh: movies and books are not the same. They are two separate mediums that have two very different powers. In the same way that a story may be told by two different storytellers, a film and a book have disparate and distinct voices.

I have since experienced movies that I enjoyed more than their books (2007's Stardust based on the novel by inordinately talented Neil Gaiman) and books that I have enjoyed in a completely different way from their movies. I still get chills every time I think of the Miyazaki film Howl's Moving Castle. And I gush for different reasons for the source novel by Diana Wynne Jones (Actually you should read many of her books. Her ability to entrance and entertain borders on the mystical. Seriously, look her stuff up.). Both of these adaptations had one thing in common. They were very different stories at the core from their source novels.

I wrote this post specifically so that I could gush about Howl's Moving Castle, because I loved both the book and the movie so much and for very different reasons. The artistry involved in either project just blows me away. The magical whimsy and visual style of Miyazaki's work compliments Jones' literary style in a way that I never would have taken from a simple reading of the book.

So what's my point? Perhaps as readers we can loosen up a bit. Movies are not books. We should expect different things from them. We should expect quality art from both mediums (unabashed cash ins should not be permitted), and enjoy them both for what they can add to the spell the author wove by simply placing letters together  on a page.

**Oh, and I would be remiss to mention the Lord of The Rings trilogy which I also enjoyed very much both as books and films. Those are also great.

How I write a book

Here's my take on writing. If you want to write a book, then you should practice writing. Listen to all the advice you can and try it out. If you think you already know how, then try it your way. Plot it out, revise, don't revise, rewrite, explore, but whatever you do, create. All of these methods above have some merit to them, and perhaps there really is one way to write that, if we were only to learn it, we could all write amazing stories. But I haven't found it, and I think that the most we can say about these other authors is that they've found one way that works. Most of the time if you find a method that works for you, some or all of it will work for someone else, but not for everyone. So in light of this, I'm going to give you my method.

I tried out a few of the above methods and I came to the conclusion that I can't really hold an entire plot in my head. But if I don't have some goal that I am writing to then I get lost.

I found out early on that I can write from a spark without planning if I'm writing a short story. Even then it gets dicey if the story is longer than a few thousand words. And I really do have a plan, but with a short story there is little enough happening (one or two characters, one scene, one specific conflict) that I can get it all down before I forget.

But when I have a longer work it starts like this:

• I have an idea
• I start to write a few scenes or scraps of dialogue. Perhaps I even get down a theme or overarching concept.
• I look at my ideas and figure out the story that they tell. This is the stage where I decide on my basic plot. I have a beginning and an ending and a few events in between.
• Next I fill in the blanks. I start to ask questions about how I get from the beginning to the end. I talk to my characters and see what they do.
• Then I write my outline. I usually write this by scenes, but I have started to give myself broader leeway and work down to the details. I read a few books and listened to some podcasts about outlining. The two outlining methods I used in my most recent book are the try fail cycle that David Farland writes about here, and the structure that Dan Wells talks about here. I take the big events and then break them down into chapters, scenes, and sometimes even beats.
• When I have a solid idea of where I'm going for the first few scenes then I start to write.
• As I am writing I continue to work on my outline. I've already got the big points down, I'm just working on the details at this point.
• I come up to problems and I brainstorm with someone I trust. I say, "I've got this problem, what are some possible solutions?" Sometimes I just brainstorm on my own.
• The outline evolves as I go, and sometimes I make changes. Sometimes I am driving in my car and I think of something awesome so I put it in. Usually it was already in the story I just didn't know.
• A few times along the way I will go back and rewrite a scene because it's taking me somewhere that I don't think fits the story. Other events will work as far as the story goes, but they are weak. I usually leave these and come back at the end.
• As I write I have my wife read and give me her initial responses to the story, though not grammar or spelling corrections.
• When I am finished I sit back and celebrate. I have a party and then I realize that I've still got a long way to go.
• I send my story out to some readers. I call them alpha readers because they are giving me only a basic response, similar to what my wife gave me as I wrote.
• While I'm waiting for one of my readers to finish, I don't think about the book. On my most recent project I waited two weeks before going back to the book. 
• I listen to the gist of the feedback. If the plot works for my readers then I start on my revisions. I make a list of things that didn't work for my readers and attack them first.
• I read my novel for the first time and destroy it. I make my English teacher envious with the amount of red I spill onto my pages.
• Then I go back and address all of my own notes.
• At this point I look for new readers and start the revisions again. I repeat this until I feel like the book is ready. Each time I look for readers that are less and less connected with me because the have less reason to like the book.
• Now here is where I stop, because I haven't published anything. So far I just keep revising until my readers aren't giving me things to change. Eventually there are some things that my readers will point out and I'll just say, "I'm not changing that." But I like to keep a mostly open mind.

One last thing...at some point there must be a new step which is this: I start another book. If this book never gets to be publishable, then I'll need to move on. I've set a goal for the middle of this year. I already have plenty of ideas to pursue. Once I've taken one idea as far as I can, then I need to start another one.

Writing is a very personal thing. Start writing something you can finish. Write a sentence, then a paragraph. Perhaps a short story. If you feel up to it, write a novel. Whatever you do, finish something. And then start something new.

Enjoy your writing, and then let others enjoy it too.

How to write a book

In order to write a book you should choose a basic topic, theme, setting, characters, etc. When you have mulled over the basics, you should then figure out what the ending to your story will be. Write that ending down because that's your end goal. You can jot down a few notes, but when you start writing be ready to discard anything except the ending. Make sure that whatever you write leads to the ending you have already written. Don't worry about drafts though, because you are going to do it right the first time. If you write a book that stinks, then don't go back to fix it. Write a new book using everything you've learned. While you are writing you might have some ideas about revision. Forget them. If you have an idea that changes your book, go back to the earliest point affected by the change and start writing again from there. You'll remember all of the important details as you rewrite (as opposed to revising) and the new material will keep the natural energy that comes from the first draft.

That's what I learned from attending a writing conference with Orson Scott Card. He's an author that I respect very much, but bwuh....Huh?
But wait, let's try something else.

In order to write a book you should outline like crazy. Work out the entire plot and then stick to it. The characters you are creating should never lead you away from what you've set down. You're the author, you tell what they do, not the other way around. If you come to a problem during the story just note it and come back in the revisions. Fix it in post, as they say in the movie business.

This is what I've gathered by listening to Brandon Sanderson, another author I respect very much. But wait...

 In order to write a book you should sit down at the keyboard, or a pad of paper and just write. Create your characters as you go. You might have some idea of where the story is going, but don't be disappointed if it goes somewhere else entirely. That's the fun of writing a book. If you know what is going to happen then why write? That's boring. The characters, setting, anything in the book will inspire you to move forward. Just keep pushing through until you discover the end. When you are finished go back and revise. You'll be revising for a while. It's the worst part, but just push through and people will love what you give them.

This is a paraphrasing of advice that I've hear from a few other authors. But wait...

In order to write a book you have to look at basic structure and conflict. Structure comes from the natural experience that we all have in life. We encounter an idea, struggle with it, and then resolve it. Conflict comes from these new ideas or events and is strengthened by involving various characters, settings, themes, events, or ideas. Start with the basics by choosing a setting (this includes politics, religion, social mores, or anything that affects the characters) When you are plotting out your book there is a basic structure you should follow....

HOLD IT!

Ok. I can't go into all of the ways that people write books. Kevin J. Anderson dictates his books onto a tape recorder while he's hiking (lucky!). Some people start with the end in mind, some people just write. Some authors say that revising is key, while others say to throw away the original and rewrite. And here's the thing that gets me. I like the outcome from lots of them. The bottom line is that I don't care how a book is written, or how a short story manages to eke its way out of your brain and onto the page. I will only see the end result. I will not often judge you on how you write, but I will judge your work because as a reader that is the point in the process that I get to take part in.

Now, that doesn't help you as a writer. Or does it? I think that you can take something from all of these writers. But you have to start taking things first.

This post is getting long, so I'll tell you about my method tomorrow.

Lots of work to do

I've been compiling a list of ideas to post on this blog and I'm kind of blown away. I always thought that my well would run dry pretty quick. But I'm amazed how many times a day I'll be thinking of something and then jump to how it relates to writing. I love this because I am intellectualizing my work. I am analyzing what I do and coming to some life altering conclusions. Well, maybe not life altering, but they're cool.

And sometimes I'll be wrong. I don't mind that. I will come to some conclusions about writing that I might disagree with later. That's part of cognitive development. But in light of you, my readers, I'll do my best to put up useful ideas that have helped me even if I do end up changing my view a bit later. I'm not looking for a place to teach you how to speak a different language with crude though humorous phrases. Monty Python did that well enough.

So I'm going to use this post to list a few of the topics I plan on covering. If you have any topics you'd like to see, just let me know.

• Levels of story building and revisions
• Writing Children's books (Picture Books)
• Taking Vitals, or finding out how you write.
• Different kinds of feedback
• Revisions and perfection
• Copyright law or people making money off your stuff
• I already have a hobby
• Tesol and Language learning
• The Possibility Space - an idea from computer game designer Will Wright
• Description and Descriptors
• Why do you want feedback?