frankie says RELAX

Screw all you people who hate on Lost.  

How could you NOT be effected this week when Jack was freaking out bearded style, Ben was regretful but absolute, and Locke was (f*cking) suicidal?

Seriously, every Locke episode makes me cry.  

Maybe this is why:

"Strong reasons make strong actions" (forget who came up with that... but I didn't) and strong actions make strong T.V.

Because lonely, failure Locke wants so much to be accepted (strong reason), he leaves his beloved island to get back in touch with the "lost" islanders (strong action),  BUT he is rejected by them anyway (strong TV)... and I cry.

Because incompetent, failure Locke wants so much to save the people on the island by getting the Oceanic Six back "home" (strong reason), he will go to any lengths- even death- to bring them back (strong action).  Ultimately, he gets his way (strong T.V.)... and I'm thrilled.

Jeez, just like with Christian on Nip/Tuck, just like Michael on Burn Notice, just like Sylar on Heroes, just like Dean in Supernatural, just like Chuck in Gossip Girl: I'm a sucker who just wants these dumb*sses to be happy!  Please, you jerks, please just BE HAPPY!

But I have to admit that watching them be categorically UNHAPPY makes for good TV :)

CALL ME! Anytime, Anyplace, Anywhere

How much action is too much?  It was kind of my question yesterday, too, but....

I love writing action scenes- the kind where lazy susans and hydrometers and car doors and jeans and ravioli cans become SUPER SCARY WEAPONS.

But someplace after the 1780000839048002380th action scene in the first 200 pages of my novel, I started feeling.... bored.  So I tried to write an emotionally resonant scene, to explain why saving a certain girl is important to the main character.  

THE SCENE IS TERRIBLE.  

So I though- ok, the solution might be to turn the "why is this girl important" explanation into a *REAL* scene, and not just some girl whining.  Also, maybe the problem isn't the number of action scenes, it's that the ones I have don't mix it up enough.  

So, ways to mix up the action scenes- set them in cooler places?

Car (check)

Basement (check)

Kitchen (check)

Dog Kennel (check)

Roadside (check)

Laboratory (check)

No bathrooms yet though.  No SUPER inclosed places.  Which is strange, because my favorite action scene of all time is in a Jason Borne movie (forgot which one) when Jason fights hand-to-hand in an apartment's tiny bathroom stall.  

Right now, I've got no car chases.  Or really, any chases.  And not much running, though quite a bit of pummeling.  That could- and should- change.  

No airplanes (etc) yet either, but that probably (?) won't change (because of the cast of characters- none have access to planes, etc.... unless....hmm)

No really tall buildings.  That probably won't change (because of the setting).

Any other cool places?  What would be the worst place EVER to have to fight?

go BIG or go home

So, I've got these zombies.  And they're attacking lots of people.  But the problem is: how many people should they attack?

(That sounds like it's going to be a tongue-twister.  Peter Piper picked.... anyway).

My instinct is for them to kill EVERYBODY (or, ahem, everybody but the hero, and maybe her dog).  Because.... why not?  They can, right?  

But there's another part of me that says.... well, zombies crawling out of sewer pipes and tearing through hospitals and taking over a news station WHILE the anchors are alerting everyone to the threat is a little.... melodramatic.

I want Die Hard, not From Dusk to Dawn.  Buffy the Vampire Slayer, not 24.  Jurassic Park, not Flowers in the Attic.  You know, fun, not hokey.

BUT WHAT'S THE LINE BETWEEN CAMP AND KICK-ASS?

And Jesus Christ, I just realized that was the subject I chose for my last college paper.  

so much for the after-taste

They say, if half the people in a group love your story, and half hate it, you've done a good job.

REALLY?!  Because I hated a story I read in my group today.  And despite a lot of people saying it was good, I'm still completely convinced it was horrible.  

And, obviously, that they're all insane and WRONG and I'm RIGHT.

I know liking a story is ultimately just a question of taste.  But when it's my taste in question, it feels much more black and white.

turning my brain into bubbling brain fondue

Ok, I love Burn Notice.

Here's why:

- they tell you how to do cool things.  In every act, the main character (in V.O.) explains how to do something like, create a huge magnet/cell phone blocker, blow something up, knock a person out with allergy medication, etc, while a character demonstrates on-screen.  SO COOL.

-Michael (the main character) and his mother have a really sweet relationship, which I love, because I love his mother.  She wears cute old-lady outfits, like bright red T-shirts.  And, she was the Teddy Bear saleslady/psycho killer/Sean's faux agent/Sean's vrai stalker on Nip/Tuck last year (!!!).  AND, she (her character) SMOKES.

Yeah, yeah, booooo smoking.  I don't even expect to see smoking on T.V. anymore!  And if someone does smoke on T.V., they are a) evil, b) clearly not enjoying it.  They always have this shriveled facial expression and a weird way of puffing... ANYWAY.  But Michael's mom is just a regular smoker.  Like mine!

And yeah, I sound like I'm four, but jeez, it's nice to have people on T.V. seem like real people.  ie, characters that live in normal houses.  And eat stoffer's.  And bum rides to things.  And have cars that are ok but that break sometimes.  And smoke cigarettes for the pleasure of it.  And tape up a chair when it gets a hole in it, because they like the chair and really, why get a new one?  And hang around their ex-s and not have it be super duper awkward (because face it, who do you know better than an ex?  why would that be super duper awkward?  unless you're ashamed of something.  in which case: lose the conscience already, would you?) And not have everything be super clean.  And wear comfortable clothes when they're just hanging out.  And use each other, but in the normal friend/family way, not scary ABUSE way (though, lamely, on Burn Notice there is some random ABUSE blah blah blah, but I pretend it's not there because otherwise I like the show so much).

I knew I absolutely loved the show when I was watching it yesterday and in a one-minute scene, Michael's mom fixes her car, psycho-babbles about her husband, smokes a cigarette, puts a stoffer's lasagne in the oven for dinner, and guilt-trips Michael into staying for the meal.  AHHHH. See, THAT is comfort viewing.  And I bet they're having entimen's for dessert.  Or maybe ice cream.  

- Like all the other USA shows, the villains aren't EVIL and the heroes aren't all that heroic.  In fact, everybody is pretty ordinary, albeit most of the heroes have at least one random, extraordinary skill and most of the villains are losers.  (Michael's skill is that he's essentially  very cool-headed and in-the-know.  Sean from Psych and Monk from Monk are both really observant).  I guess USA has cornered the market on totally-normal-except-super-resourceful heroes.  

And, while the villains do bad things- they kill people and rob people and are generally not nice- they're only ORDINARY bad, not Law & Order bad.  DAMN sure not Law & Order: SVU bad!  Or Law & Order: Criminal Intent irrational.  But then, Criminal Intent's criminals are the most self destructive ever, and their motives are always so abstract, and their plans are always so roundabout... but I digress.

I like how USA constructs its detective shows in general, and I like how they construct Burn Notice in particular because- well, let's face it, I'm an all-action girl, and that show's the one with the most action.  And I think Burn Notice does a very good job of balancing the Monster of the Week episode-length-arc with the character development.  

BUT, I do wish they'd improve one thing (ok, two- drop the abuse thing, too): transitions.  They're always really awkward and weirdly long.  Sometimes we just get a little too much time "hanging" silently with the actors after a scene, while they walk to the next place, etc, and sometimes we get weird jump-cuts, and sometimes we get these weird establishing shots of random (RANDOM) things (ie, we'll be going from a parking lot to a house, and we'll get a long, distorted shot of the ocean for our transition.  Why?  I dunno.)  It's not that the show doesn't have strong act-outs (in theory), because it does- I think it's just the editing.  But jeez, it cheapens the whole thing and makes it feel so awkward, and kind of pulls the act-out punch.... and guys, seriously, all you need is to cut away faster.  It's not that the scenes themselves are awkward or out of place.

OR: Angel's transitions always seemed cool to me- they were a bunch of shots that flicked by REALLY fast to kind of creepy sound effects.  Usually the shots would just be various locations, etc, but a lot of the time they were out-takes from or alternative versions of the scene we'd just watched- and that was REALLY cool/creepy.  Like, if a scene had been really heavy, we'd see a super-fast glimpse of the same characters, but playing it happier.  Or, if the scene was super light, we'd maybe get a shot of the same characters, but angry or surprised, etc.  It gave everything a kind of spooky edge. 

ALSO:

As long as I'm going on and on and on about television: Nip/Tuck has been ROCKING.  Last week (2/10), the show had all these strange in-joke feeling moments.  Two that stood out were: when the soap-actor wants to sit in on surgery, only to have a fight with Sean and storm out, while wrestling with his clothes and screaming, "they don't fit!," and when Christian is killed in the script and the soap-actor explains, "I didn't know what to do with his character."

(Which made me very sad, because I think the writers have been doing a FABULOUS job with Christian this season.  SERIOUSLY.  This is as good or better as that time you led up to the has-unrequited-love-for-Sean thing.  Which- cruelly- you never developed... but I digress).

And honestly, I found this past week's episode very touching.  It's strange: when I started watching, I mostly wanted to see Christian get it on, and whatever the hell Matt's CRAZY storyline was.  And for a while over the past couple seasons, since Christian hasn't been getting it on and Matt's storylines have gotten more "realistic," I've felt that the show was seriously slipping.  But this season- Matt's just being responsible and boring!  Julia's gone (yay!)!  Christian's been so introverted!  And it works!  Wow.  

Now, I mostly watch hoping people will be nice to Christian and Sean will get knocked down a peg, and Kimber will show up (because I freaking love Kimber).  

This is the formula I think they need to keep:

Be cruel to Christian.

Shock Sean.

Matt's storylines should be as outlandish as possible.

Kimber should *always* be around.  

And Julia *never* should.

Also, I like Liz pretty well, but I'm not super attached to her yet.  How could they fix that?

How could they make Liz into a *real* character, too?

ALSO:

The Sarah Connor Chronicles is a boring show.  They talk about action a lot, but they don't have enough of it.  And Sarah is *SO* arrogant.  Every time she speaks I want to roll my eyes.  And for God's sake, John, if THAT is your mother, and you have decided to be with her ALL the time, you've made the bed of perpetual single-hood/unhappy girlfriend-hood, and you'll just have to lie in it.  Forever.  THINK about that and repent.  NOW.

But Dollhouse is pretty good.  The stories feel a little bleh to me (last week was an abused child confronting her abuser.  this week was, an abused child has become an abuser and Echo faces him when he tries to abuse her.  can't we just have a heist, or any plot with a *sane* motive?  anything besides psychos?  and crappy childhoods?), 

and some of the acting seems over the top (memo to guy who changes the "dolls'" memories: CALM DOWN.  you make me tense.  you are what they call a "blower."  STOP.) although the guy who plays Echo's mentor is good and the guy who played the psycho tonight was good, too (meaning likable- I don't know shit about acting).  When I look at Echo, I just see Faith, etc, so I can't even really judge. 

But what makes the show good for me: the action.  GREAT fight scenes.  They feel scary, but they're also beautiful.  And well-spaced within the show.  Tension is really good.  I'm not a deep person: those are the things I enjoy :)

What I like: 

Burn Notice: SMOKING.  Nip/Tuck: CANCER.  Dollhouse: FIGHT SCENES.  Jeez, who am I?

Other Pro/Cons:

Burn Notice: 

Pros:  Tone.  Character v. Action balance.  Internal logic- no cheating.  Psycho teddy bear lady.

Cons:  Clumsy transitions.  Clumsy sentimentality (ie, sad father/brave daughter, abuse backstory)

Nip/Tuck:

Pros:  Beautiful, as always.  Total (writer) knowledge of the characters.  Fun, self-mocking (I LOVE that they always say things like: where's my NONFAT yogurt?).

Cons:  No layered story-lines (lately it's been the Christian show).  Cheap tricks/Obvious gimmicks- they're boring (who thought Sean was going to be crippled forever?  or that Teddy would stay?  Or that the little Indian kid would?  or that Matt could hold a storyline about becoming a dr.?  Or that there wouldn't be ENDLESS gender confusion/incest?  And I don't need to see someone changing Sean's diapers to be annoyed with how infantile he is.  I'm annoyed by that every second he's on-screen).

Dollhouse (not really fair because there have only been two episodes, but...):

Pros: Great fighting.  Great pacing.  Cool set.  

Cons:  Can be too "meta." (ie, the super self-aware, super scenery-chewing memory-guy).  Too much blah backstory taking the forefront (last week's ep rested on the "imprint" skill-person's backstory being really destructive, and this week's rested on a psycho-killer threat coming back to haunt the characters.... yawn.)  

FYI:  PSYCHO KILLERS ARE BORING.

Know what's interesting?  THE UNPREDICTABLE.  And evil is very, very, very predictable.  SO PLEASE STOP BORING EVERYONE WITH IT.

The sad thing is:  I'm sure Joss Whedon knows that, and I'm sure the other writers on his staff know that.  So whoever is stuffing his show with BORING SHIT, please stop.  ECHO IS TOTALLY AMORAL- THAT'S WHAT'S COOL ABOUT HER!  So please stop shitting all over the premise of the show by having Echo be a super-cop taking down the baddies.

Ok, now that I've gone on and on and on (and haven't even touched Lost and my newfound love for Ben, or Gossip Girl and how I love all the drippy melodrama, or Supernatural and how it is SO OBVIOUSLY a show about men but made for teenage girls- and me.  I promise not to ever speak of Heroes again, though.  I mean: they get rid of all the women, team up all the dorks, and CLAIR, WHEN YOU GET A REAL PROBLEM CALL ME BECAUSE BEING BEAUTIFUL, IMMORTAL, AND LOVINGLY/SHREWDLY CARED FOR BY YOUR GUARDIAN ANGEL/FATHER IS NOT A PROBLEM) so I'd better sign off and come back to those shows later.  

Mr. (Re-) Right

Dean Wesley Smith (author of more than ninety novels, including both original Men in Black books) loves these rules: 

Heinlein's Rules

1.  You must write.

2.  You must finnish what you write.

3.  You must not rewrite unless to editorial demand.

4.  You must mail your story to an editor who will pay you money.

5.  You must keep it in the mail until someone buys it.

On his blog (go read it!), he writes that these rules scare most beginning writers, because they challenge a bunch of self-destructive writing myths.  

Such as: rewriting makes a book better.  

Yeah, I have the most trouble with number three.  1.  Because I write in a scatter-shot, non-chronological way, and I (think I) need to go back over my stories to get them to fit together.  2.  because I don't self-edit AT ALL while or right after I write.  I just try and type everything down as fast as I can.  And I can't believe that the first, random way something comes out on the page is the best I can do.

But apparently that's a rule A LOT of beginners have trouble following, so he gave a few examples of people liking the fresh, thoughtless pieces people knocked off better than the ones they'd made into precious pieces of art.  

And I thought about my own most successful pieces- meaning, the pieces people liked the best.  And actually, most of them WERE things I just scribbled down and got in.  Not just poems or short stories; the essays I got A+s on in college were generally the ones I'd only spent a night on, blasting away.

So screw editing for now.  I'm going on.  And after yesterday's recharge time, I've got a fabulous outline for the thriller, so it'll be that much easier :)

I can't promise that after this draft I'll put the story in the mail... like I said, I haven't been writing chronologically, so there are a lot of expos. things I'll need to clean up, plus things like spelling/grammar mistakes, consistency in how the various characters talk, and changing vocab. a little so I won't repeat the same word OVER and OVER and OVER.

But maybe I shouldn't fret so much, and should trust my instincts more.  Maybe this stuff is easier than I thought :)

Rabbit at Rest

Not that I could ever finished a single book of that series; I read in one of them how the smell of Rabbit's stepsister's period filled the house every month and made Rabbit really horny, and decided not to try to like them anymore.

ANYWAY, I didn't write at all this morning.  Or this afternoon.  I sat around reading Jurassic Park and being as cheerful as possible. 

I had a vacation day because 1. I didn't get called in to work, where I usually end up writing during my free time/lunch.  2.  I just COULDN'T stand to edit.  3.  I got some bad/annoying news and was feeling under the weather.  

But oddly, I don't feel unproductive.  Because sometime around mid-afternoon, my brain started up its brainstorming all on its own.  There's an outline for the last part of my thriller brewing in there, and tonight I'm going to work with it.  

And THAT is the good thing about keeping up a rigorous writing schedule; after a while, your brain and body just settles down to work all on its own.  Just like you get hungry at dinnertime and sleepy at bedtime, at writing-time, you're brain just gets whirring.

It's like I'm delegating the work somehow.  Awesome, huh? :)

seems I'm not alone at being alone/hundred billion castaways, looking for a home

I've been debating for WAY too long about joining the Facebook fad and putting up twenty-five things about me.  But I just can't do it; because the most important thing about me is my writing, and I'm not sure if I want to put any of my dreams on (f*cking) Facebook for everyone to see.

I still don't tell acquaintances that I write- when they ask what I do, I tell them about my part-time day job and make jokes about any other questions.  They look at me like I'm pathetic, and then change the subject.  

My good friends and my family know about it, but even they don't know what kind of time I put in every day, or what my goals really are.  They think I'm a slacker and a dreamer, and that one day I'll come to my senses and call back all the law schools I applied to last year and beg them to take my money and put me back on my lists.  The people close to me try and be supportive, but... you know that phrase, it's always good to have a doctor in the family?  No one ever says that's it's always good to have a writer.

It can be hard dealing with their disappointment.  Of course, it would be harder to give up writing, so the only option is to suck it up- which I'm (obviously, lol) still learning to do.  One way of avoiding their attempts to humor me is to not bring up writing at all.  It's also my way of trying to not bore them- if I get started on one of my stories, etc, I never shut up.

I try to stay sweet and cheerful and keep my whip-cracking and brain-storming and editing and typing and general angst to my area of the basement.  But sometimes I get pretty frustrated- with all the belittling comments, with the digs, with always being broke, with always having to be grateful (for cheap rent, for time, for being "humored" by people around me), with having people assume my time is free because I'm not spending it at on office, with always being the intense, scary person in every writing discussion, with always having higher hopes than anyone else, with never having enough time, with no respect or validation, with my own cold-heartedness and ambition, with the way my life is so uncertain.

With hearing people say, "Well, if those are your priorities..." in an ugly, contemptuous tone, because they've called to chat in the middle of my writing time and I need to call them back.

The people around me act like my decision to be a writer is a HUGE self-indulgence, that they're willing to let slide- for now.  Yeah, maybe it IS self-indulgent.  Maybe I am a talentless, hopeless, delusional brat.

But what I don't get is: why do they assume that they aren't just as talentless, hopeless, self-indulgent and delusional?

Why is writing more self-indulgent than living a life in which you have money and time to spend on dates and dinners out, an (above ground) apartment of your own, maybe even hobbies?  A life with the luxury of BOREDOM, for God's sake.  And health insurance.  And co-workers.  Bonuses and promotions for hard work.  A sensible,  dependable career path.  A life in which, when people ask what you do, you can actually answer and not have them look at you like you're a crippled dog.

I don't want to be a spoiled kid screaming "That's not fair!" So when I'm around people I swallow my tongue and pretend I don't care about writing, either.  I don't tell them about my real job, I don't fill out stupid on-line surveys, and I stick to conversation topics like: T.V. and gossip and horoscopes and food.  But I want SO badly to be around people who care about and think about writing like I do.

That's the point of this blog, and the reason I post every day.  

Extra Plush

For the past couple days, I've been filling in my YA's first act.  

The goal: deepen my story and characters, and tighten the plot by stringing together some of the manuscript's (many, many, many) loose ends.

The big fear: PADDING.

To me, padding is: events that don't cause other events, or aren't direct consequences of other events.

So, before I started writing, I created a document called "SET UPS" and skimmed my manuscript.  Every tidbit or event or relationship that caught my eye in the manuscript (or at least those I didn't feel I had mined to death) were put in the "SET UPS" docu.

My biggest set-up happened to be "RELATIONSHIP WITH MOTHER" (other set ups were: "BOOKS," "TALKING IN CODE," "NEW V. FULL MOON"- they weren't all deep).  

So yesterday, I created a (relatively minor) confrontation between the Pro. and her mother.  Today, I had trouble coming up with something else to mine, so I went on with "RELATIONSHIP WITH MOTHER" (too keep the new material grounded, and contingent on what came before/what's coming next, ie, not padding).  But today, I concentrated on info/events based on  "NEW V. FULL MOON."

Tomorrow, I'm not sure which set ups I'm going to mine, but it'll draw upon both "RELATIONSHIP WITH MOTHER," and "NEW V. FULL MOON," though it'll probably concentrate on something else.

This system feels like it's working, and my manuscript is improving before my eyes- pretty damn cool :)

steady droppin' rounds like it's heavy cargo

How good are first drafts supposed to be?

Mine are pretty bad.  They don't have too many interesting turns of phrase, or developed similes, and they aren't sprinkled with telling details or observations.

My writing isn't very good the first time around.

Is that strange?  Is that bad?  

On the one hand, there are people like Anne Lamott, who, in Bird by Bird, writes that "shitty first drafts" are the way to go... but then, she also says sometimes it takes her a whole day to get down 250 words.  

(But Anne, if you're willing to be shitty, why does it take you so long to get down one page, double spaced?)

On the other hand, is Elizabeth George, who, in The Art of Writing, goes on at length about her pre-writing process, and how she needs full bios of every single character, and maps of hundreds of pages of plot at least, etc, etc.

I blast out A LOT each day- between 3,000 and 4,000 words.  It's tough and exhausting to do that, but I think it's best.  Whether, I think like crazy about a rough draft before I write it, or I just type it down faster than I can think, it turns out to be about the same quality- for me, first draft is first draft is first draft.  

So, to save time and anguish, I just type it out, based on the barest possible outlines.  And after months and months of boot-camp-style writing quotas, I finally feel like I've got the rough-draft-writing process DOWN.

But, I haven't hit the editing process for most of my recent work yet.  Maybe editing the slop I've got into something to be proud of will change how I approach rough drafts?

if the pirates of the caribbean breaks down, the pirates don't eat the tourists

I was reading Jurassic Park today, for notes on structure, and on how to plug in scientific information with style.  The book really does chug right along, with hook after hook after hook and no good place to stop reading.  And because my story isn't exactly like it, and Jurassic Park works so well, I had a anxiety fit and haven't written yet today.  

My story doesn't have DINOSAURS, or AMUSEMENT PARKS, or GLAMOROUS RICH PEOPLE, or CUTE CHILDREN or tons and tons of HIGHLY REGARDED EXPERTS, and my characters aren't stuck in a TROPICAL PARADISE!

Every scene in Jurassic Park relates DIRECTLY, OBVIOUSLY to the central hook (that dinosaurs are back).  In theory, I knew every scene was supposed to do that... but I didn't realize HOW directly they could/should relate.  I've got groundwork for subplots getting laid in, I've got people with agendas that will LATER have to do with the central conceit of the story, but don't seem to at the moment... I've got scenes where the focus isn't obviously on the BIG SCARY conceit.

Guess I've got to change that.

It's helpful reading a book that works in a way that I want my book to work... but it's scary, too. 

Because I don't know if I can make my book as good.  And even if I do my very best to make it entertaining and smooth and interesting, but the hook just isn't hook-y enough or the whole thing is just too lite?  Too "trashy"?  Too strange?

What if, after working as hard as I possibly can, for no money and less respect, I end up with a piece of crap story that nobody wants to read?

God, who thought Jurassic Park was ever going to give ANYBODY this much existential angst? 

It's the EYE OF THE TIGER, it's the CREAM OF THE FIGHT

The YA is at the point in the story where the sh*t has hit the fan, and it's now time for the climax/ending.  Only, because the set up (parts 1 & 2) is still so bare (the story has gotten A LOT more complicated as it's gone on), I'm having trouble determining how the climax should go.  I think the story questions have been kind of lost in all the complications of parts 2 & 3, and so I'm unsure what the climax needs to prove, or how the main character has changed- what she can do now that she couldn't before.

Solution:

Make an outline (on note-cards) of every scene I've got.

Write the (roughly) fifteen more scenes that I need in parts 1 & 2 so that the story makes sense as it is so far, and properly sets up what needs to happen next.

I hope that by looking at where I've been, I'll be better able to understand where I need to go.

I feel a tug to do a full editing job on the first three parts, but worry that would kill all the finale's freshness- think I need to stay in "rough draft" mode for now.  But the climax is a delicate point for me (I tend to go too big), so I need to think theme and set-up through somewhat before I take the plunge.

Hope this outlining/filling out is a good compromise between editorial analysis and the creative flow.

every new beginning comes from some other beginning's end

Learned this the hard way, and thought it might be helpful:

*****I will ALWAYS outline the end before beginning to write a piece.*****

Here's why:

If I know the end (though not necessarily how I'll get there) it's SO much easier to keep up enthusiasm for my daily grind.

The story stays taut, and the dramatic drive stays strong.  

I've got actual plot problems to solve and think through, instead of a series of obstacles invented as I go- so I'm a LOT smarter about twists and solutions.

The story stays unified, and the story questions stay clear.

Thinking up good endings can be *really* tough once there are subplots and tertiary characters and bunches of locations, etc.  Tackling the ending is only about half as tough when I have a clear destination I've been working towards for the duration.  

Plus, since the end won't feel as daunting, I'm not as tempted to pad and ramble and avoid writing it.

So, I'll never write something again without having a strong idea for the story's ending- for the sake of my work, and my mental health.

a zombie is a zombie is a zombie

If you write a whole book about zombies, but never use the words zombie, is it still a zombie book?  Or is it just a book about a lot people who get sick and want to eat brains?

Is it a (techno/bio)thriller or a horror story?

I guess the point of that is: I know people are getting sick of vampires... which means they're going to be feeling a little blah about werewolves and zombies and demon possession, too, I'd bet.  

So, does that mean they're going to be feeling blah about little old werewolf and zombie and demon possession-obsessed little old me?

In other news, I'm reading Shirley Jackson's The House on Haunted Hill.  It's REALLY fantastic.  Simple, but dreadful- and impossible to put down.

How does she hook you so hard with a story where nothing really happens?

I read that tension comes from people being forced to make moral choices.  Her characters must be making choices ALL the damn time, then, because this book has PHENOMENAL tension.  Well, I guess they are.  They constantly have to choose to stay in the creepiest house in the world, they constantly have to choose how they present themselves to each-other (hiding and showing fear is a *big deal* to these characters) and they constantly have to decide who to trust and how much.

This is the kind of book I read and wish to GOD I'd written.  Does reading a book like that make you feel good (because it's so beautiful) or bad (because you didn't write it)?  Now that I'm getting better, it makes me feel good- I don't line-edit the damn thing the whole time I'm reading, I just enjoy it and learn from it where I can.

melodrama, or just drama?

My novel's storyline can go two routes:

1. there is a huge, biological threat (think: bubonic plague, but more cinematic).  But the plague is stopped just in time by the (semi)ordinary hero.

2. there is a huge, biological threat.  A (semi)ordinary hero figures out how to stop it- but the plague has already spread, and only some people have the genetic makeup to be saved regardless.

Is #2 drama, or melodrama?  Because I've been working from an outline that's more like #1, when I'm suddenly thinking it should be #2.  GAH!

there will be a test

Vocabulary in middle grade books (meant for kids 8-12) is controlled, the books are only between 25-40K, and the sex and death aren't shown as graphically or lovingly as in adult novels.

Got it.

But what about YA?  Apparently, it's aimed at teenagers or older pre-teens, but a good-sized minority of readers are adults.  Judging by the books I've picked up at the library, the themes tend darker and angsty-er than most adult books (of course, maybe that's because I pick up the super dark and angst-ridden titles ;) ).  I've read to aim for about 40-60K, but often hear about people shopping 90K manuscripts, and a lot of the books at the library seem long.   I've read that the major difference between YA and adult is pacing- in YA books, every page has got to be interesting in its own right.  But shouldn't that be true of any book?!

What are the rules for YA?  What's the real audience for YA books, and what kind of frame of reference are they assumed to have?  

Is the vocabulary the same as in adult books? I don't want to chock my story full of references to things like "tulle" and "maypoles" if the audience won't have been exposed to those things before- but I also don't want to talk down to them and assume they haven't heard of the things I have.

My story also has a lot of brain-teasers and puzzles in it, and those need to be hard without being impossible.  I'm around high school students a lot, but I'm not sure how hard is too hard for them.  At that age, there seems to be a HUGE range in how comfortable they are with abstract thinking, because there's a HUGE range in how much algebra, music theory, and art they've been exposed to so far.... I'm worried that will mean a HUGE range in how hard or easy the riddles are for kids, so it'll be impossible to hit the difficulty right.

I don't want to talk down to a YA audience, but I also don't want to make reading my story into a chore.  What's the line?  Or is this even worth worrying about?

And then, and then, and then....

My YA is going on a tangent.

On the one hand, the story is kind of cool, and since I'm a "short" writer, I have room for it. I'm hoping to end up with a manuscript somewhere between 60-65K, and then will pare it down to 55-60K.

On the other hand, I've got so many characters and subplots and strange places going on, that I'm worried I'm going to lose the thread of my story.

Is this normal? I'm about 30K in, but that's misleading because my first act is about 8K shorter than it will be in the second draft (my story's A LOT more complex than when it started, so the beginning is now missing a ton of character/plot information/set-up).

I've been working from outlines in this piece, and it's been going pretty well, so I'm worried about going so far "off book"!

the protagonist wins, but probably gets shot

In a looooong-ago post, the Rejecter complained about the "Mid-Life Crisis Thriller" (read her blog if you haven't yet!).

She describes the Mid-Life Crisis Thriller as: 

"Open with a guy being chased by a killer and then killed.  Move into Chapter 1, a domestic scene, until the protagonist (who usually has a similar job to the author's) gets tied to the killed person in some way and decides to solve the crime or gets thrown into some conspiracy because of a package of information sent to them by the dead person.  Throw in some attempts on the protagonist's life, maybe a love triangle, and end somewhere dramatic or symbolic (a church, a graveyard, or the original murder site) with the protagonist facing off against the killer.  The protagonist wins, but probably gets shot.  End with a wrap-up three months later and try to end on a mysterious letter or the announcement that someone's pregnant  There, done."

She says that these stories (almost?) never get accepted.  But I don't really see a huge problem with this plot!  Yes, these are the bones for a pretty tried-and-true thriller.  But I'm not sure that tried-and-true has to mean hackneyed.  

I'm not saying that the manuscripts she's seeing deserve to be picked up- from the way she talks about them, I doubt they're well executed or publishable.  I'm just saying- aren't some of these tropes (the romantic subplot, the ordinary person turned extraordinary hero, the final, triumphant face-off) what make a story into a thriller?  Wouldn't losing these tropes mean losing the thriller form altogether?

a slip down the cognitive development steps

Is it best to do the bulk of your research at the beginning, or the end of the writing process? What's the difference between "good" and "time-suck" research?
How much is enough, and how much is too much?

I have overdue fines at the library, so I have to avoid the librarians and use the crappy self-check machines every time I go. The problem is: I check out WAYYYY too many books about WAYYYY too many topics- all in the name of research- and then guiltily push them out of the way every damn day until I realize I've had them for a month and quick rush the whole stack back.

Fiction is so fun because it's an improvement on the truth. Research books are depressing, because they remind me the truth can only improve so much.

I still don't understand the line between fact and fiction, I guess- must have missed a cognitive development step somewhere- so it's incredibly difficult to know where the truth is necessary.
(By "truth" I mean facts, not authenticity).

My current "solution": I check out a zillion research books, become overwhelmed by the ocean of facts, and end up making everything up anyway.

But I can't afford all these overdue fees anymore, and sometimes making stuff up isn't fiction, it's lying or casting aspirsions, or being straight-up wrong. So, something's got to change.

How do you research? When do you research? How much time do you spend researching?

Masturbation or Self-Flagellation?

I can write any place I can plug in my computer.

It doesn't matter if I'm alone or with a classroom full of kids, I zone out and everything else disappears within a minute or two.  (Which is why I try not to write while I'm teaching- even if the kids are busy ;) ).

But sometimes I wonder- how difficult or easy is it supposed to be?  

Yesterday, I ended up writing a character into my YA who I love.  The problem is, I've loved a version of this particular character since I was about six years old.  So he's still only as interesting and nuanced as someone created/loved by a six-year-old; ie, not exactly (teen)fiction material.

Every day I escape into this strange dreamworld, peopled by all kinds of interesting characters.  But where does "making fiction" stop and mental masturbation start?  

Want. Take. Have. (Pretty, pretty please?)

YA books haven't held up for me.  I LOOOOVED them when I was a kid, and remember many of them- or at least, how they made me feel- vividly.  But reading them as an adult.... they're kind of "eh."  And I'm talking all kinds of books, because I was a HUUUUUGE reader as a kid (no surprise, huh?)- Newberry Prize winners and Harry Potter types and the Sebastian Barth mysteries and Avi.  

The YAs I've been reading are just as subtle and well-written as adult books... but they don't delve into things as deeply; they aren't (usually?) as complex emotionally or structurally.  (BTW, what do YA writers think about this?  Do you agree?)

I'm all for basic, simple structure- I'm a minimalist, and my over-riding goal is always clarity.  But YA books just aren't as emotionally satisfying to me now as they used to be.

So, since I couldn't quite sink my teeth into YA books- even ones I loved as a kid- I tried re-watching my old Buffy DVDs.  

I was OBSESSED with Buffy as a teenager.  OBSESSSSSSSED.  Like, up to six in the morning in chat groups obsessed.  And dorky.  Obviously.

Anyway, the shows hold up.  Even things that annoyed me when I watched them as a teenager- Willow's weird hats, her timidness, the way the "kids" had great bodies and great hair and super cool clothes (compared to me and my lameness, anyway), how they always took tests really seriously even though real teenagers have some kind of test every other day- those things don't seem that big of a deal now.  

And now, I can really appreciate things like: how well constructed all the episodes are.  They have a powerful meta-story, while being satisfying in their own right.  And they're like potato chips- once you see the first act of an episode, it's hard not to watch the next.  And once you see an episode, there are so many questions that you just *have* to watch the one after.  Even the *SEASONS* are like that- I ended up ordering Season 6 because I just couldn't take not having it anymore.  

I like Buffy just as much now as I did when I was fifteen or sixteen- maybe more.  I would think I love it- campy monsters, out of date pop references and all- because I'm a beautiful and unique snowflake and my tastes are exceptional- except that they're not.  

Actually, I'm one of the grey masses everyone's always talking (snobbishly) about lately.  PLENTY of people love Buffy- plenty of people love it even more than I do.  They go to musicals and suffer through Serenity (which, to me, is like Buffy but boring, with lamer fighting, and ugly clothes) for Joss's sake.

And just because Buffy was (ostensibly) the equivalent of a throw-away action show like Heroes or Knight Rider- only made for kids, on a network-let micro-budget, with lower ratings and a final cancellation  six years ago- doesn't mean people are going to stop referring to it, buying the DVDs, introducing it to their friends, worshipping anything Joss Whedon touches, and generally loving the show to pieces.  

Why does this show seem at least as good as ever, while the books don't?  What does it have that they are missing?

care so much it hurts

Read the advice yesterday: writing is best when you don't care.

I'm not sure whether I agree.

On the one hand, writing is ALWAYS better than not writing.  If you care so much about each word that you're paralyzed, you'll never really write.  

I don't believe in spending a lot of time thinking and planning beforehand, because I think you can't really tell whether or not something works or is engaging without actually writing it out.  It's WAYYYY better to have a shitty draft than to have a shitty outline.  A shitty draft is the first step to a great story, while a shitty outline is (nearly) worthless.

On the other hand, you've got to think what you're doing is meaningful.  Perfectionism is a bad thing through the first few drafts, because it can paralyze you.  But you've got to believe that you CAN be fantastic.

Writing is tough because it's a difficult craft to master.  But it's also tough because a lot of people think it's easy, worthless, or brainless.  When you make writing the center of your life, that means money, fun, and even family, sometimes has to play second-fiddle.... which A LOT of people won't understand.  They'll have contempt for how you live your life, and they'll have contempt for you.

It's easy to care too little about your writing- pretty much everyone around you probably wishes you would care less.  They'll eat up your time and energy until your writing gathers dust and you're a perpetual hobbiest.

I think you've got to care A LOT about writing in order to write.  You've got to make the commitment to write despite what everyone thinks, despite the lifestyle sacrifices you have to make, and despite it being pretty damn tough in and of itself- and that requires taking writing, and your writing in particular- seriously.

And I don't think perfectionism has to do with caring about writing.  I think it comes from arrogance- the idea that you actually CAN be perfect.  The idea that writing is something you can master without practice or mistakes.

So, I don't know about anybody else, but I don't think my mantra can be "don't care."

My mantra is "be humble and devoted."  Because if I'm humble, I won't mind if my stuff is sometimes shit.  And if I'm devoted, I'll keep going anyway.