Writing Discussion

[Joe Rice]

I, as I often am, am of two minds about writing. In a number of ways. I'm trying to work through some of that and I thought I'd open up a discussion here about it. Now, just to get it out of the way let me put my predjudices up on display.

I find plot to be the least interesting and least worthwhile of fiction-writing. Sure, it's possible to do plot well and a horrible plot can harm a work, but I don't find a plot necessary. And it takes one hell of an outstanding plot for me to even care about it. I'm more interested in the use of language, the artfulness of the presentation, character, even the ideas and subtext or dialogue than plot.

Ancilliary to that, I tend to really hate genre fiction. Hardboiled detectives I have a soft spot for, mostly due to the brilliance of Raymond Chandler. But sci-fi bores me to tears and fantasy I outright avoid and loathe.

However, I'm also a giant nerd and was raised on this stuff, for better or worse. So when an idea forms in my consciousness, it's often framed by way of genre. This often frustrates and annoys me, but more on that later.

I alternately agree with and hate the school of thought that real art comes from your real life and what you're dealing with or have dealth with. I don't want every comic to be Optic Nerve, but it's no secret that it's a lot better than 99% of genre comics, artistically at least.

So when I write, what I deep down want to write are real works with language play and actual meaning for life. But when I try those, they come out painfully over-earnest or stupidly theraputic. My senior thesis screenplay went from a study of the various forms of love to "Oh my God I love Jaime and it's hard" pretty damn quick. Now, part of this is that I've not lived long enough to really process the truly meaningful things I've experienced. But some raw reaction could be good too.

So, sometimes I get an idea and it's somewhat rooted in real-life issues but it gets framed by genre. And it bugs the hell out of me. My most recent story idea (God, it's embarrassing even talking so stupidly "writerly") was about trying to escape small-town life and the complications of loving more than one person . . .but it was framed by a fantasy story. And, as I said, I fracking hate fantasy. So then it also became kind of an anti-fantasy story, a reconstruction of everything I find abominable about the genre. But it's still . . .a goddam fantasy story with magic and elves and all that crap. Let me tell you, even writing this down where people can see it is difficult for me. I find it utterly humiliating that this is the best I can come up with.

Sure, there are times I see past it and say "Hey, it could actually work because of this and this and this and this." But I'm loathe to even put pen to paper because I feel like such a goddam idiot when I think about it. I'd much rather have a more real-life idea where only the language is fantastical; but I'm afraid I haven't the skill yet to do that without it becoming a goddam livejournal of self-pity/congratulation.

So, the discussion: where do you stand on the issues?

Write what you know?

Real meaning comes from real life work? Or something closely approximating it?

If you find shame in genre work should you bother with it or force yourself to work it through?

(My book from last year was decidedly hardboiled-inspired, and I enjoyed writing it and actually still feel good about it. But, again, I actually like that genre a bit.)

Is masking real life in genre just a bullsh*t pu*sy way of avoiding looking at real truth? Or is it the product of a life wasted on subpar lit? Or is it a way to get across real life through metaphor while still maintaining a balance of entertainment?

God, this has gotten so long it will probably go unreplied. Anyway, I should cut it off now before it grows even further.

[JeffreyWKramer]

So, the discussion: where do you stand on the issues?

Write what you know?
It's more a matter of "know what you write", methinks. After all, it's not like James Ellroy was ever either a cop or a depraved killer. If you're going to write about something, though, at least take the time to do some research and really learn about it.

Real meaning comes from real life work? Or something closely approximating it?
Real meaning comes from a good understanding of humans. Human motivation, human emotion, human relationships. Nothing matters to humans as much as humans.

If you find shame in genre work should you bother with it or force yourself to work it through?
I don't think "shoulds" are a very good thing for art. That said, any shame one finds in genre work probably is more the fault of the individual than the genre. Dashiell Hammett, Jim Thompson, Harlan Ellison, Gene Wolfe, Ray Bradbury, Phillip K. Dick, Alfred Bester, Michael Moorcock and Louis L'Amour were/are all genre writers. One could do much worse. I'll take any of the above over, say, Jane Smiley any day of the week.

That's not to say that most genre writing isn't shit. It is. But so is most non-genre writing. The key is that good writers write stuff that incorporates more than the conventions of the genre, whereas bad writers just play with those conventions.

Is masking real life in genre just a bullsh*t pu*sy way of avoiding looking at real truth? Or is it the product of a life wasted on subpar lit? Or is it a way to get across real life through metaphor while still maintaining a balance of entertainment?
Any or all of the above can be true. Genre can be a cop-out, and a lot of genre is just regurgitated, plot-centric shit with no real theme and no value beyond momentary entertainment.

God, this has gotten so long it will probably go unreplied. Anyway, I should cut it off now before it grows even further.
Other than work-related stuff - reports and such - I don't write nearly as much as I'd like, mostly because I'm a horribly harsh critic of my own writings, but that doesn't keep me from being very interested in the process of writing, and I always find your musings on art fascinating, so I'm up for this discussion.

[Tobias March]

I've always suspected the 'write what you know', advice can sometimes be taken far too literally. To approach a piece featuring a space battle with an evil race of alien sponge creatures.....with sincere emotion and regard for the integrity of the protagonist should be just as valid as Kitchen Sink dramatic pieces like Look Back In Anger.

Well maybe not entirely, but still. I would see good writing as being very conscious of itself, aware of the possible pitfalls of convention or morality. Nabokov is one example of a writer ably capable of sidestepping these occasional failings, yet still providing a strong narrative. Not saying a moral story is a failure, just that an over-reliance on a moral weakens the quality of writing.

Same goes for trying to write alien sponge monsters ;)

[Michael P]

Write what you know?

It's a good place to start. Ultimately, any work with a theme will have a theme close to the creator's heart.

Real meaning comes from real life work? Or something closely approximating it? Real meaning comes from good work that reveals something about the human condition, as filtered through the mind of the artist.

If you find shame in genre work should you bother with it or force yourself to work it through?The question isn't whether you find shame in it. It's whether you want to write it.

Is masking real life in genre just a bullsh*t pu*sy way of avoiding looking at real truth? Or is it the product of a life wasted on subpar lit? Or is it a way to get across real life through metaphor while still maintaining a balance of entertainment? At its best, the third. But there's certainly some genre work that applies to the first two. The difference is that between good genre fiction and bad.

Y'know what you should read? "Forbidden Brides of the Faceless Slaves in the Secret House of the Night of Dread Desire" by Neil Gaiman. It's the story that made me stop worrying and love writing nerd fiction.

[Matt Algren]

I think there's a balance between writing what you know and having it not be so painfully biographical. I'm a fan of Jon Hassler's books because he does great characters, really well defined, fully realized people. His first novel in the mid-1970s was about an 11th grade English teacher in a small Minnesota town. Hassler, when he wrote the book, was an 11th grade English teacher in a small Minnesota town.

It was pretty clear that he was writing to a certain extent about personal experiences, but the character was real enough that I could get past that. As his work progressed he stretched out past that biographical tendency and had some wonderful work. You can see most of his plots coming a mile away, but he makes up for it with the character study.

Then a few years ago, he decided that for health reasons, he was soon going to be past the point when he could write, and his work took a nose dive. I mean, I've seen writers fall, but when he fell, he fell fast. He came out with a book that neatly tied up all the loose ends and put everything in a neat package with a bow on it. Every major work he'd done had a character that happened to meet in this one. One of them had the same disease he had, and made a speech about it in the middle of the book. It was horrible. Just a disaster. I was madder at that book than I've ever been at a mega-crossover. I felt physical pain reading it. I'm feeling physical pain just writing this.

He's since come back from the brink, and put out a book last year that fixed some of the damage, but (to get back to the point) for awhile there, he steered way too close toward writing what he knew. I think if you reach the point where your characters are doing things you've done, or giving monologues that you've given in your head, you're probably too far. When you get to the point where a stranger could tell it's biographical, you've gone way too far.

I remember reading an interview with Madeline L'Engle. She talked about characters moving the plot around on her and how hard that is to deal with. In the middle of one of her books (I don't remember which one), a character she'd grown fond of died, and it bothered her because that's not what she expected to happen when she mapped out the plot. She read it to her son, who told her that the character shouldn't die. But, and here's the hard part, he did die. Even if it weren't what she started out to write, that was simply what happened. It's when your characters become fully realized and surprise you, even doing things you disagree with, moving the story in new directions that magic happens.

[Michael P]

Real meaning comes from a good understanding of humans. Human motivation, human emotion, human relationships. Nothing matters to humans as much as humans.

I think it was Theresa Neilsen Hayden who said something like "All stories are about people." And it's true. Once you've got people down, everything else is just window dressing.

[Matt Algren]

If you like character studies, rent this DVD (http://www.netflix.com/MovieDisplay?movieid=60033552&trkid=189530&strkid=1658741470_1_0&hnjr=5). Marvelous work from Alan Bennett and Patricia Routledge. The first monologue has barely a sliver of plot to it, but it's the most engrossing study I've seen in a while. The second has a bit more plot in it, but Bennett's so subtle that I don't think a lot of people "got" what he was saying.

(Keeping Up Appearances fans be warned: This is drama, not comedy.)

[Michael P]

As for plot, it's like the beat of a jazz song. It's got to be there, but the real work is in the riffing.

[thespianphryne]

tl; dr














Just kidding!

Erm, well...these are things I too struggle with as a writer of some sort. I don't believe plot is unimportant. In fact, one of the things that really bugs the hell out of me is the absence of plot in a lot of fiction today, especially with the arrival of the self-revelatory novel and what not. But lets leave that aside. Get to the main thing.

Write what I know?
Yes, that, but also how much do you know? How about knowing what you write. More important than what you know is how well you know it or otherwise you're just some over-earnest idiot.

Genre?
Nothing wrong with genre - it's a way of framing something, a frame of reference. If you know what the tropes of a particular genre are, there's something to be said for their masterful and/or subversive use. Just because it's genre, doesn't mean it's a piece of crap. Sometimes "literary" fiction is crap. I think what you may be talking about is the inability of a lot of writers in genre fiction to surprise us. We see the same archetypes over and over again, the same good cop bad cop; the same hardboiled detective; the same half-breed elf/human/alien/whatever and it fucking gets boring. So bring us the touches of reality then, the gestures that set these particular stereotypes apart.

Avoiding looking at the truth?
Maybe it is. But think also about what Emily Dickinson said: "Tell the truth but tell it slant, Success in Circuit lies.....The truth must dazzle gradually or every man be blind." Sometimes there are truths that are difficult for us to swallow as reality, so as writers it's sometimes an imaginative obligation to find a way for that truth to percolate viscerally into our dense natures. And another thing: just because something is real doesn't mean it's true. Truth, like Art, is one of things that becomes hard to define and yet exists.

Own harsh critic?
Thank god for those who are. But sometimes you just need to write it all down. Even the drivel and the doggerel, you cannot judge the shape of the work if you keep knocking it down all the damn time. When you can actually see the full arc of your own writing is when you can alter your aim. But I've found it very useful to just keep writing even it is the thirteen-hundredth description of the bottles lined up against in my favourite bar. Or as one of my theatrical heroes, Paul Sills reminded me: Just say the fucking words!

What's my point in all of this?
I don't know; I'll soon find out once someone quotes and contradicts something I said and I get all defensive and huffy.

Cheers,
Das

[Joe Rice]

As for plot, it's like the beat of a jazz song. It's got to be there, but the real work is in the riffing.

It doesn't HAVE to be there. Now, yes, for most folks, it does, and it's a classic part of literature and writing and if you're going to do without it you damn well better have the chops, but it doesn't HAVE to be there. I've enjoyed a lot of works without plot.

As for the rest of this, it's fascinating. The Gaiman story I may check out, though I've never really enjoyed his prose.

Part of me thinks that putting real life problems in genre fiction is as inappropriate as, say, a Captain America mourns 9/11 tattoo or Mark Millar's dissection of American politics in Civil War.

Another part of me knows that most of this is coming from my own hang-ups and hates, but it can't get that first part to shut up just yet.

[Captain_Video]

So, the discussion: where do you stand on the issues?

Good idea for a thread, I am not a published writer, so I can't call myself one, but I do write for my own self financed projects and have helped out on some actually published stuff ( no credit yet though ).

Write what you know?

"If a young writer can refrain from writing, he shouldn’t hesitate to do so." —Andre Gide

I agree with this ( though I am at 24, probably a young writer ), I agree with write what you know, its always better even in the most fantastic story to speak the truth as you know it.

Real meaning comes from real life work? Or something closely approximating it?

"Love the art in yourself, not yourself in the art", would be my response, but then everyone should write what they believe in, from the heart and we can never truly know other people.

As long as you don't create a Mary Sue and remember to give characters traits you disagree with then its easy to keep an objective distance.

If you find shame in genre work should you bother with it or force yourself to work it through?


I don't find shame in genre work, as I was taught in art "you can sometimes tell far more with a single line than a thousand little ones", allegory can often be much more honest than just documenting reality, "just because it is true, does not mean anybody is going to believe it".

If you find shame in it however, you absolutely should avoid it, or it will show in the work.

Is masking real life in genre just a bullsh*t pu*sy way of avoiding looking at real truth? Or is it the product of a life wasted on subpar lit? Or is it a way to get across real life through metaphor while still maintaining a balance of entertainment?

I think the whole negative "emo teenager" label is a way for society to find comfort in being detached and cynical, too many people are afraid to put themselves out there and speak from the heart nowadays, I can understand you can get hurt and you have summed up a writers fear brilliantly.

I would prefer something that is a bit "emo" but still heartfelt than some of the really dry, needlessly aloof prose I seem to be reading a lot of lately.

It takes balls to be weak in my opinion, especially when sitting alone at that keyboard.

I like this conversation.

[Michael P]

It doesn't HAVE to be there. Now, yes, for most folks, it does, and it's a classic part of literature and writing and if you're going to do without it you damn well better have the chops, but it doesn't HAVE to be there. I've enjoyed a lot of works without plot.

Are you talking plot as in the diagram we all remember from English class, or are you just talking plot as in "something happens?" 'Cause pretty much all stories have something happen in them, even if it doesn't have rising action, crisis, falling action, etc. "A guy has lunch" is a plot.

[Shellhead]

In college, I gave up early on my dreams of becoming a journalist or a novelist, with occasional regrets. But I still love to read, so I will respond as reader and not a writer.

Write what you know, unless you're willing to do a bunch of research to move outside your own experiences for subject matter. Even when writing in a genre like fantasy, your personal experiences can still be relevant, in terms of character development, dialogue, maybe even plot twists.

Real meaning comes from insight into basic issues that people can relate to, regardless of genre. Right now, my favorite tv show is Friday Night Lights, even though I have zero interest in high school football, fictitious or otherwise. But I love the show because it addresses things that I do care about, like the awkwardness of first love, racism, loyalty, professional ethics, etc, and it does all these things in a way that seems realistic and even subtle. But I suspect that the writers of this show could do the same quality work in other settings.

I used to select my reading by genre, until I realized that I could no longer enjoy bad books in my favorite genres, and that I could definitely enjoy good books in genres that I wouldn't normally look at. Likewise, you should feel free to write in whatever genre is most suitable for what you want to write.

Masking real-life issues through the filter of a genre can work just fine, as long as it's not obvious or is at least veiled in an interesting metaphor. The more imaginative genres may actually give you extra freedom to deal with specific aspects of a real-life issue that you couldn't get away with otherwise. For an extreme example, Harlan Ellison once wrote a short story (Croatoan) about abortion that offended both some pro-life and some pro-choice readers. I will only say here that what happened to the fetus after it was disposed of was not something that could ever realistically happen, and that allowed Ellison to really push many readers into very unfamiliar and uncomfortable thoughts that challenged their viewpoints.

To be honest, I might not enjoy your writing based on comments you made about plot. To me, the very essence of a good story is a plot that has me anxiously awaiting to find out what happened next. I realize that is a limited perspective, and one that not all readers would share with me. But when I notice that story is more character-driven than plot-driven, I feel like the pacing is less compelling.

[Joe Rice]

Are you talking plot as in the diagram we all remember from English class, or are you just talking plot as in "something happens?" 'Cause pretty much all stories have something happen in them, even if it doesn't have rising action, crisis, falling action, etc. "A guy has lunch" is a plot.

I'm talking more the diagram. In my preferred works, when you describe the movie or story, you don't give a plot synopsis, if that makes any sense.

[Michael P]

Write what you know, unless you're willing to do a bunch of research to move outside your own experiences for subject matter. Even when writing in a genre like fantasy, your personal experiences can still be relevant, in terms of character development, dialogue, maybe even plot twists.

This is true. I have a fantasy story in a drawer that's heavily steeped in my mother's stories of working in overworked and underfunded hospitals.

[Michael P]

I'm talking more the diagram. In my preferred works, when you describe the movie or story, you don't give a plot synopsis, if that makes any sense.

Ah. Yeah, fuck the diagram. It's useful when you're writing that type of story (I've certainly used it), but it's not necessary. Dorothy Parker's story about the woman waiting for the phone call didn't need it, for one.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Part of me thinks that putting real life problems in genre fiction is as inappropriate as, say, a Captain America mourns 9/11 tattoo or Mark Millar's dissection of American politics in Civil War.

Another part of me knows that most of this is coming from my own hang-ups and hates, but it can't get that first part to shut up just yet.

Go watch some of the original TWILIGHT ZONE and OUTER LIMITS episodes, make some allowances for the time and broadcast standards, and see if you still think that.

Or check out Farmer's THE LOVERS and consider how well it probably would have worked out for a writer to examine those same themes so overtly in general fiction at that point in time.

Or give some thought to what Robert E. Howard might have been saying about human nature, beneath all the macho fantasy-adventure stuff.

Or, read the DANGEROUS VISIONS anthologies or some of the British new wave SF stuff that inspired them, and compare the sorts of themes those genre writers were exploring to the primary themes present in literary novels of the time, and see which were more cutting edge.

[Paul McEnery]

"A guy has lunch" is a plot.

One of the best plots ever: a man goes to buy a shoelace.

[Michael P]

Go watch some of the original TWILIGHT ZONE and OUTER LIMITS episodes, make some allowances for the time and broadcast standards, and see if you still think that.

Or check out Farmer's THE LOVERS and consider how well it probably would have worked out for a writer to examine those same themes so overtly in general fiction at that point in time.

Or give some thought to what Robert E. Howard might have been saying about human nature, beneath all the macho fantasy-adventure stuff.

Or, read the DANGEROUS VISIONS anthologies or some of the British new wave SF stuff that inspired them, and compare the sorts of themes those genre writers were exploring to the primary themes present in literary novels of the time, and see which were more cutting edge.

I'm thinking Joe would like China Mieville.

[Captain_Video]

Plot isnt always fundemental, but I always like it if something is propelling the story forward and that it knows where it should end, even if there are not many events.

That way it isn't just a sprawling monster with point.

Always have a point and a logical length I guess.

"Even an artist will pick the size of his canvas".

[Paul McEnery]

I'm thinking Joe would like China Mieville.

I'm thinking if Joe read China's King Rat, he'd get a new appreciation for why plot matters.

BTW, Joe --

Give us a clue. What is it about specific genre writing that gives you the willies?

[Joe Rice]

I'm thinking a lot of this neurotic bull from me is stemming from a) my incredibly harsh thoughts on my own writing (I only still like my book and a screenplay I co-wrote--both genre pieces, mind you); b) my fear of the more personal parts of the subject matter (let's just say I couldn't exactly write this realistically and not feel repurcussions); and c) a weird insecurity/feeling of not wanting to be that guy writing a goddam fantasy novel.

It's all stuff I need to get over or at least stop talking about.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I'm thinking Joe would like China Mieville.

I think you're probably right.

[Joe Rice]

Give us a clue. What is it about specific genre writing that gives you the willies?

To be brutally honest:

The plot-centeredness. Like I said, plot doesn't matter much to me usually and it's also my weakest point.

The people that write it and read it. I get enough of that with comics!

Long-instilled notions that if I'm going to really write, I should write about something more important.

[Joe Rice]

I think you're probably right.

C'mon, guys! A Korean wife doesn't mean I like all Asians!

[howyadoin]

'Cause pretty much all stories have something happen in them, even if it doesn't have rising action, crisis, falling action, etc. "A guy has lunch" is a plot.Bingo. It bugs the shit outta me when somebody dismisses a work by sniffing, "it has no plot."

Apparently plots need to very complex for some people, and hey, if that's your thing, go with it. But the fact that you don't like the plot doesn't mean it's non-existent.

[JeffreyWKramer]

It's all stuff I need to get over or at least stop talking about.

As with many things, talking about it is probably crucial to getting over it. Just thinking through it on your own is hard, because too often we just keep going over the same paths inside our head. Looking at things differently often occurs when we look at things from a new perspective, be it one coming from another, or simply being forced to look at our own ideas differently in order to put them into words and convey them to others.

This is what therapy is, of course, but it's also how writers can benefit from a good editor, or from a writer's community, and the same thing happens in other types of art.

[Merey]

Emotionally, I think you do need to write what you know. Now, I don't mean that you have had to experience the same situations and resulting emotions as your characters, but there needs to be a sort of heighten level of empathy to convincingly convey the inner worlds of your characters. There have been plenty of novels I've read (and recently for a bookclub, Piccoult's Tenth Circle - ack!) where the author decides to tackle huge, raw emotionally distressing situations, but they just go for surface, obvious emotions. That, for me, kills the story. Although, I guess you could argue that empathy isn't first-hand knowledge/experience either, but I do think all emotions stem for one innate place and they just manifest differently due through various situations. We all have the ability to empathize, but I think it takes a particular talent to bring a character to a fully dimensional life.

Yeah, it's pretty obvious I value character and dialogue over all. Spectacle and action..and hey, even plot sometimes, can be shoved to the side for all I care.

[Michael P]

Long-instilled notions that if I'm going to really write, I should write about something more important.

I'd really like to meet whomever put it into your head that genre work can't be about something important. And give him a good kick in the ass.

[Joe Rice]

As with many things, talking about it is probably crucial to getting over it. Just thinking through it on your own is hard, because too often we just keep going over the same paths inside our head. Looking at things differently often occurs when we look at things from a new perspective, be it one coming from another, or simply being forced to look at our own ideas differently in order to put them into words and convey them to others.

This is what therapy is, of course, but it's also how writers can benefit from a good editor, or from a writer's community, and the same thing happens in other types of art.

And why this discussion is even more helpful than I'd anticipated.

[Joshua Pantalleresco]

Write what you know?

Honestly, I don't think that's avoidable. It all comes from somewhere inside you. Even the most fantastic of ideas is a reflection somewhere of something you know or an idea coming from what you know.

Real meaning comes from real life work? Or something closely approximating it?

Meaning comes from substance. And substance by definition again is tied to something in the real world. There is only meaning if people can connect to what you are trying to say. They may hate it, or love it. But there has to be a connection somewhere. The books that say the most have the ability to put you in the situations described in any story and give you the experience of the characters. You take away something from that

If you find shame in genre work should you bother with it or force yourself to work it through?

Genre work is fine. Really it's just a defined groundwork. It's fun to take it apart though and put it back together in your own way.

Is masking real life in genre just a bullsh*t pu*sy way of avoiding looking at real truth? Or is it the product of a life wasted on subpar lit? Or is it a way to get across real life through metaphor while still maintaining a balance of entertainment?

When I read Jesus in the bible I always admire his ability to put things in parable. It gave room for people to look at things at face value, or to try and grasp the real meaning to what He said. Genre is a very similar device to parable.

When you write you always have to consider your audience. People percieve things at different levels. Honesty and truth is not something most of us excel at percieving. Most of us miss what is going on right under our own noses. TParables and genres can give a reader the ability to see things in ways both familiar and unfamiliar at the same time. And let the reader draw their own conclusions. There are many layers to reading. And genre can be a tool to help. Although it can hinder as well.

[Ed Cunard]

Long-instilled notions that if I'm going to really write, I should write about something more important.

I'm going to surprise you, maybe, but fuck that. Setting out to write something "important" almost guarantees that you won't--it's too focused on how the product might be received, and not focused enough on the product.

If you've got genre in you, let it out. Just because most of the people that write genre fiction string words together like they were making macaroni necklaces shouldn't dissuade you from doing genre work. Had those people read something other than genre fiction and connected with it (for whatever reason) found something more "lofty" with which to connect, they'd be shoving really bad works of a different stripe on top of the ever-swelling slush piles of frustrated editors.

Look at it this way, Brother Elitist--if you write it well enough, it may just be important, no matter how much genre drag it wears.

[Michael P]

I'm going to surprise you, maybe, but fuck that. Setting out to write something "important" almost guarantees that you won't--it's too focused on how the product might be received, and not focused enough on the product.

If you've got genre in you, let it out. Just because most of the people that write genre fiction string words together like they were making macaroni necklaces shouldn't dissuade you from doing genre work. Had those people read something other than genre fiction and connected with it (for whatever reason) found something more "lofty" with which to connect, they'd be shoving really bad works of a different stripe on top of the ever-swelling slush piles of frustrated editors.

Look at it this way, Brother Elitist--if you write it well enough, it may just be important, no matter how much genre drag it wears.

God damn, you just made me harder than I've been in months.

[Joe Rice]

I'd really like to meet whomever put it into your head that genre work can't be about something important. And give him a good kick in the ass.

Probably no one person. Piecemeal of my own thoughts on genre fiction (with few exceptions) and maybe some film and writing teachers.

I do remember one quote . . .I had had to abandon a previous studio video piece and stayed up all night writing a monologue by a cyborg assassin that was a study on suppressed emotions. An excellent professor I had, after watching it, said, "That was pretty good. You should write about people."

I bristled at first, but he was right. I was using genre bullshit as an escape exactly my character refusing to have his tearducts removed wasn't.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Long-instilled notions that if I'm going to really write, I should write about something more important.

You're talking theme there. Most significant themes can be examined in most genres as well as they can outside genres. The key is to not limit oneself to the conventions of the genre, and to have something beyond those conventions in mind. In other words, have in mind some concept deeper than "This elf goes and does cool shit and gets some cool magic doodads" or "This tough guy gets laid and punches a lot of guys while figuring out who killed somebody."

[Ed Cunard]

God damn, you just made me harder than I've been in months.

God. You really are hung up. Shit.

Said shorter--it's not the fault of genre fiction that shitty writers often connect with it and can find a modicum of success writing it.

Blame whomever it was that told those shitty writers that they were God's special snowflakes who had something unique to say.

[Joe Rice]

I'm going to surprise you, maybe, but fuck that. Setting out to write something "important" almost guarantees that you won't--it's too focused on how the product might be received, and not focused enough on the product.

If you've got genre in you, let it out. Just because most of the people that write genre fiction string words together like they were making macaroni necklaces shouldn't dissuade you from doing genre work. Had those people read something other than genre fiction and connected with it (for whatever reason) found something more "lofty" with which to connect, they'd be shoving really bad works of a different stripe on top of the ever-swelling slush piles of frustrated editors.

Look at it this way, Brother Elitist--if you write it well enough, it may just be important, no matter how much genre drag it wears.


And if it crashes and burns, at least it'll be lost in a pile of similar awfulness!

[Chris Nowlin]

...that was a study on suppressed emotions. An excellent professor I had, after watching it, said, "That was pretty good. You should write about people."

Maybe I'm missing the context, but it sounds like you were writing about people and he missed it.

[Joe Rice]

You're talking theme there. Most significant themes can be examined in most genres as well as they can outside genres. The key is to not limit oneself to the conventions of the genre, and to have something beyond those conventions in mind. In other words, have in mind some concept deeper than "This elf goes and does cool shit and gets some cool magic doodads" or "This tough guy gets laid and punches a lot of guys while figuring out who killed somebody."

Or "This loser guy gets laid (rarely) and gets punched by a lot of guys while figuring out where his friend is."

Oops.

God. You really are hung up. Shit.

Said shorter--it's not the fault of genre fiction that shitty writers often connect with it and can find a modicum of success writing it.

Blame whomever it was that told those shitty writers that they were God's special snowflakes who had something unique to say.

I hate it when I get that. I tell my wife my writing problems and she just makes fun of me but doesn't help me through it. I tell my girl friends and they just tell me how great I am.

[Ed Cunard]

And if it crashes and burns, at least it'll be lost in a pile of similar awfulness!

No, probably not. Dissimilar awfulness, maybe, but not similar awfulness.

That is, of course, unless you're writing about a bad-ass elf detective who bones all sorts of exotic not-real things while solving crimes with his massive intellect, his cunning wit, and his extremely-large-not-wish-fulfillment-at-all penis.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Probably no one person. Piecemeal of my own thoughts on genre fiction (with few exceptions) and maybe some film and writing teachers.
Unless you're one of those rare folk that has taken classes with Nabokov or John Irving or one of the other actual, good writers that sometimes teach, you've probably experienced too much of the reality behind the cliche "those who can write (or draw, or direct, or whatever), do, those who can't teach.

Keep in mind, Kurosawa mostly did genre films. John Huston did lots of genre films. So did Kubrick.

Plenty of people write genre while also writing people.

[Joe Rice]

Maybe I'm missing the context, but it sounds like you were writing about people and he missed it.

Nah, I'd layered in too much bullcrap when I should have just been honest with it.

[howyadoin]

Said shorter--it's not the fault of genre fiction that shitty writers often connect with it and can find a modicum of success writing it. Exactly. All the shitty wannabe blues musicians in the world can't make the blues itself shitty or boring.

And really, it's not like shitty writing is confined to genre fiction.

[Joe Rice]

Unless you're one of those rare folk that has taken classes with Nabokov or John Irving or one of the other actual, good writers that sometimes teach, you've probably experienced too much of the reality behind the cliche "those who can write (or draw, or direct, or whatever), do, those who can't teach.

Keep in mind, Kurosawa mostly did genre films. John Huston did lots of genre films. So did Kubrick.

Plenty of people write genre while also writing people.

Other than that one instance, I can't recall a time when any teacher was anti-genre. It must mostly come from me. I'd still take Richard Brautigan or Terrence Malick over pretty much anyone else.

[Joe Rice]

Sorry, semi-drunk phonecall from the little sister. Ah, siblings are such a delight.

EDIT: Which apparently was shorter than I thought, and only ended up making my previous post a little incoherent.

[Paul McEnery]

I'm thinking a lot of this neurotic bull from me is stemming from a) my incredibly harsh thoughts on my own writing (I only still like my book and a screenplay I co-wrote--both genre pieces, mind you); b) my fear of the more personal parts of the subject matter (let's just say I couldn't exactly write this realistically and not feel repurcussions); and c) a weird insecurity/feeling of not wanting to be that guy writing a goddam fantasy novel.

It's all stuff I need to get over or at least stop talking about.

Huh.

So what I'm hearing here is a passionate man trying to get at something that's really bugging him, but not yet wanting to have to face it, so throwing up a few straw men to keep the problem at bay for just a little while longer, but knowing that's bollocks, so sticking it up here to make us do the work for him. :D

Like me. I can come up with articulate rationalizations for why I don't like naturalism in any of its forms, but what I really hate is my feeling of alienation from regular people. (Well, I also hate most of what regular people get up to; so it's like the first rejection letter I ever got -- I hate the Sacramento Bee, but I hate even more that they wouldn't publish me.)

So for me, if something doesn't have an interesting plot/story, or inventive use of language or visual style, or some outrageous ideas motivating it, I'm not going to like the work. I'd rather watch all of Van Damme's movies back to back than read a single sentence by Doris Lessing or Joyce Carol Oates. The latter feel like death to me.

So I figure that there's a personal issue here you need to unkink, because apparently what's in you that wants to be written wants to come out as genre. In which case, I'd suggest you get out of its way and let it do what it needs to.

BTW, how did you feel about Pan's Labyrinth?

[Ed Cunard]

And really, it's not like shitty writing is confined to genre fiction.

Of course it isn't.

I mean, I write "literary fiction." AND BOY IS IT SHITTY.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Nah, I'd layered in too much bullcrap when I should have just been honest with it.

That's a risk of genre writing, particularly when one uses genre in order to approach themes on the metaphor/allegory level. One can be too aware of technique and lose character, or get so wrapped up in the symbolic nature of what one's doing that the character comes out more as a cypher or symbol than a person.

[Captain_Video]

Also I like the phrase "all writing is re-writing", ( sorry for all the quotes, I have them pinned up to inspire my lazy self and like to spread them ).

But I have to disagree with editors for things other than spelling and correct grammar, I know non edited works can so often lead to a prog-rock sprawling mess, but a good tasteful writer should know how to edit themselves and be brutal with their own work.

Do I really need the shopping list scene ? do I really need the early morning scratch and sniff scene ? What is the point ?

Another comment on genre work, is that if you believe in it, it is worth doing and will seem true, I believe the audience can tell when they are being lied to, they want your story, not some paint by numbers rubbish.

If you understand genre and it speaks to your soul then write genre, if anything it gives you a frame to reign in the desire to create a bible length novel about personal struggles.

Even slice of life is a genre after all.

[Ed Cunard]

Sorry, semi-drunk phonecall from the little sister. Ah, siblings are such a delight.

I feel a bit of Captain Renault coming on.

[Joe Rice]

BTW, how did you feel about Pan's Labyrinth?

I want to see it but know it'll scare the wife too much.

And bingo on me in this post.

[Joe Rice]

I feel a bit of Captain Renault coming on.

ACK NOT UNDERSTANDING REFERENCE TOO PROUD TO GOOGLE

FRACK! CASABLANCA!

[Joe Rice]

Too proud . . .

I'm too damn proud to write fantasy. That's the problem right there. I find it undignified and somewhat feel that the very attempt would be an outright admission of my own lack of worth artistically, a lack of worth I deeply suspect anyway.

[Ed Cunard]

ACK NOT UNDERSTANDING REFERENCE TOO PROUD TO GOOGLE

Line from Casablanca. "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"

[Captain_Video]

I hate it when I get that. I tell my wife my writing problems and she just makes fun of me but doesn't help me through it. I tell my girl friends and they just tell me how great I am.

I laughed at this because it is so true.

Thats why I love having a brother who is quite possibly the harshest critic in the world ( I am the same with him )...he will just flat out tell me when my work is crap and take no excuses.

My most lame excuse when talking about character motivation was "Oh why does anybody do anything" ...finally realising it was wrong, oh about 26 minutes later.

You should always keep someone around who will put you in your place I think, just because you have talent doesn't make you invincible...I like to remember that one.

[Ed Cunard]

Too proud . . .

I'm too damn proud to write fantasy. That's the problem right there. I find it undignified and somewhat feel that the very attempt would be an outright admission of my own lack of worth artistically, a lack of worth I deeply suspect anyway.

To quote another high-brow source:

"Two words, Charlie. Therapy."

Seriously? TRY IT. Write some crazy, off-the-wall genre shit and get it out of your system. Then, look to see what you've made, and rewrite it into something and pay attention to the craft.

You may surprise yourself, nerd.

[Joe Rice]

You should always keep someone around who will put you in your place I think, just because you have talent doesn't make you invincible...I like to remember that one.

This must be why I keep sticking around here . . .

[Paul McEnery]

Too proud . . .

I'm too damn proud to write fantasy. That's the problem right there. I find it undignified and somewhat feel that the very attempt would be an outright admission of my own lack of worth artistically, a lack of worth I deeply suspect anyway.

Go see Pan's Labyrinth on your own, then. It'll do you good.

It might also do you good to read M. John Harrison's short stories (there's a NightShade collection that has both his books plus one extra story in there). Very naturalistic, great attention to detail, and the fantasy/magical element is very often over to one side where the protagonist, to his cost, can't spot it. The novels Course of the Heart and Signs of Life do the same, but, you know, involve more than 20 pages of investment at a time. Great goddamn books, though. Man might be the best writer of English prose alive right now.

[Joe Rice]

To quote another high-brow source:

"Two words, Charlie. Therapy."

Seriously? TRY IT. Write some crazy, off-the-wall genre shit and get it out of your system. Then, look to see what you've made, and rewrite it into something and pay attention to the craft.

You may surprise yourself, nerd.

Yeah, I should try it.

I did think up a possibly interesting way to use magic, since you kind of have to in these things. I think it's original, but I also haven't read a fantasy book since I was in junior high.

Heh, maybe every thing I think is kind of original has been done to cliche by now.

[Joe Rice]

Go see Pan's Labyrinth on your own, then. It'll do you good.


I'll probably have to netflix it. Me-time is too precious to spend on movies these days, as much as I love movies.

Speaking of which, if I suddenly stop replying the wife got home and I'll check in tomorrow.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Too proud . . .

I'm too damn proud to write fantasy. That's the problem right there. I find it undignified and somewhat feel that the very attempt would be an outright admission of my own lack of worth artistically, a lack of worth I deeply suspect anyway.

There's more to fantasy than Tolkien rehashes and DnD fiction and Xena fanfic, y'know? It doesn't have to be about elves and unicorns and bards and shit.

Jose Luis Borges, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Isaac Bashevis Singer and Thomas Pynchon - hell, anyone that plays around with magical realism - are all fantasy writers.

Keep in mind also, the Hernandez Brothers pretty much do fantasy in comics form.

[howyadoin]

Line from Casablanca. "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"Weirdness. I just ran into a reference to that earlier today in a book I'm reading.

Heh, maybe every thing I think is kind of original has been done to cliche by now.Excuses, excuses.

[Ed Cunard]

More whining. Write the fucking thing, Rice. You'll feel better once it's out of your system, and then you can go back to writing important things like stories about gentrification where music plays a metaphorical role as hip hop and soul clash with Coheed and Cambria or whatever it is white people listen to nowadays, leading to a disjointed cacaphonous juxtaposition of sounds and rhythms.

And then you can share it with me. You know I'll be merciless for you.

[Joe Rice]

There's more to fantasy than Tolkien rehashes and DnD fiction and Xena fanfic, y'know? It doesn't have to be about elves and unicorns and bards and shit.

Jose Luis Borges, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Isaac Bashevis Singer and Thomas Pynchon - hell, anyone that plays around with magical realism - are all fantasy writers.

Keep in mind also, the Hernandez Brothers pretty much do fantasy in comics form.

Good points, all. The problem here being that my idea kind of IS a Tolkien/DnD riff, which makes it all the worse. Just, hopefully, a more naturalistic, truly-emotive version about normaller, non-epic characters.

[Paul McEnery]

Too proud . . .

I'm too damn proud to write fantasy. That's the problem right there. I find it undignified and somewhat feel that the very attempt would be an outright admission of my own lack of worth artistically, a lack of worth I deeply suspect anyway.

Oh, and yeah. I know exactly what you mean.

Nothing fucks up your writing more than hanging your self-worth on it. And nothing fucks up your self-worth like hanging yourself with your own writing.

[Joshua Pantalleresco]

Too proud . . .

I'm too damn proud to write fantasy. That's the problem right there. I find it undignified and somewhat feel that the very attempt would be an outright admission of my own lack of worth artistically, a lack of worth I deeply suspect anyway.

Isn't all fiction fantasy?

Seriously, Fantasy the genre doesn't have to be cliched to death. You can go with the traditional high epic fantasy (Jordan, Goodkind, Eddings etc.) or down a very different path (Stephen King, Robin Hobb, George RR Martin, Susanna Clarke, Jacqueline Carey, Charles De Lint) with it. Don't look at fantasy as just swords and sorcery. Fantasy can be so much more than that. Many tools in fantasy are used in other genres as well.

Serve your story. Seek to write the best story you can, and let the rest take care of itself. WRITE it down. An idea on paper is better than any blank page. Don't doubt your worth until it's down on the page. Afterwards tinker with it. Start with what you have to say, and take it from there.

JP

[Captain_Video]

Yeah, I should try it.

I did think up a possibly interesting way to use magic, since you kind of have to in these things. I think it's original, but I also haven't read a fantasy book since I was in junior high.

Heh, maybe every thing I think is kind of original has been done to cliche by now.

Also I like the rule "the audience will go anywhere with you once, but ONLY once "..so set out the rules of the world and don't go back on them.

It is a big problem with my favourite genre, superheroes, you have to give a damn good reason why Superman wears a stupid outfit in my opinion.

That is a big problem with some genres, you set out the ground rules ( a robot comes back from the future ) and as a reader I am thinking, O.k, Cool, robots, far out....

But if the writer then says, the robot is also magical you lose me.

[Paul McEnery]

Good points, all. The problem here being that my idea kind of IS a Tolkien/DnD riff, which makes it all the worse. Just, hopefully, a more naturalistic, truly-emotive version about normaller, non-epic characters.

At least you know there's an audience for that kind of crap.

[howyadoin]

Tons of great advice here. Makes me wish I had something substantive to add, but I've pretty much given up any aspirations in the area of writing.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Good points, all. The problem here being that my idea kind of IS a Tolkien/DnD riff, which makes it all the worse. Just, hopefully, a more naturalistic, truly-emotive version about normaller, non-epic characters.

Stuff about magic guys and heroes and such doesn't have to suck. Consider Moorcock and Zelazny.

All the genre conventions became cliches for a reason. There isn't anything inherently wrong with them. But, if you worry about relying too much on that shit or getting trapped in the cliches, turn the stuff around.

Rather than elves or barbarians or whatever, change the culture and setting. Reframe the quest or whatever while maintaining the themes.

[Joe Rice]

At least you know there's an audience for that kind of crap.

Blargh!!



-

[JeffreyWKramer]

Blargh!!



-

If you write a FORGOTTEN REALMS novel or anything with drow, I promise to make fun of you for the rest of my life.

[Ed Cunard]

At least you know there's an audience for that kind of crap.

Blargh!!

You'll take Pullmann's money and you'll like it, Rice!

[Joe Rice]

Stuff about magic guys and heroes and such doesn't have to suck. Consider Moorcock and Zelazny.

All the genre conventions became cliches for a reason. There isn't anything inherently wrong with them. But, if you worry about relying too much on that shit or getting trapped in the cliches, turn the stuff around.

Rather than elves or barbarians or whatever, change the culture and setting. Reframe the quest or whatever while maintaining the themes.

The major cliche stuff would be in the background, really. The basic premise is about a young guy from a hick dirt farm town who joins the big army when the recruiter rides through just to get to go to the big metropolis and meet girls. The day after he gets there, war breaks out and he's shipped to a different hick dirt farm town where he spends his time crapping himself in between magic fireballs and evil goblin attacks or whatever.

Oh, and a B story (or maybe A story) about how he falls in love with two people at the same time and has trouble dealing with that.

[Paul McEnery]

Also I like the rule "the audience will go anywhere with you once, but ONLY once "..so set out the rules of the world and don't go back on them.

It is a big problem with my favourite genre, superheroes, you have to give a damn good reason why Superman wears a stupid outfit in my opinion.

That is a big problem with some genres, you set out the ground rules ( a robot comes back from the future ) and as a reader I am thinking, O.k, Cool, robots, far out....

But if the writer then says, the robot is also magical you lose me.

Oh, you tempt me horribly.

[Ed Cunard]

The major cliche stuff would be in the background, really. The basic premise is about a young guy from a hick dirt farm town who joins the big army when the recruiter rides through just to get to go to the big metropolis and meet girls. The day after he gets there, war breaks out and he's shipped to a different hick dirt farm town where he spends his time crapping himself in between magic fireballs and evil goblin attacks or whatever.

I thought you were writing genre, not autobiography.

...

Shit. I'm too much like Lisa to be helpful.

[Chris Nowlin]

Tons of great advice here. Makes me wish I had something substantive to add, but I've pretty much given up any aspersions in the area of writing.

I'm happy to read this thread and learn.

I remain hopeful that I'll get something written someday, though the more I try, the more I realise I'm best sticking with the sciences

[Joe Rice]

You'll take Pullmann's money and you'll like it, Rice!

Haw!

I thought you were writing genre, not autobiography.

...

Shit. I'm too much like Lisa to be helpful.


Nah, Lisa would have told me to shut up and poked my nipples by now. Like, post three.

[Captain_Video]

The major cliche stuff would be in the background, really. The basic premise is about a young guy from a hick dirt farm town who joins the big army when the recruiter rides through just to get to go to the big metropolis and meet girls. The day after he gets there, war breaks out and he's shipped to a different hick dirt farm town where he spends his time crapping himself in between magic fireballs and evil goblin attacks or whatever.

Oh, and a B story (or maybe A story) about how he falls in love with two people at the same time and has trouble dealing with that.

I know you don't need audience comments as that is like poison..

I like the idea, but I would hate it if it went into armour and weapon fetishes so prevalent in fantasy, I would hate it if the character banged on about his sacred sword "chumsaggum" or something.

I like how grounded in realism it is and it could provide something unique because of this, if it was set in reality it would probably fall under the radar as just another war story.

It fulfills the "what can you uniquely bring to the world of writing" quota.

[Captain_Video]

I'm happy to read this thread and learn.

I remain hopeful that I'll get something written someday, though the more I try, the more I realise I'm best sticking with the sciences

All art is craft, all music is math.

I much prefer someone who will put in the technique and craft a story well than an artist with no substance, subtance being in my opinion part of the craft.

John Ford, considered himself a craftsmen and he was pretty damn good.

You only live once, so if you wan't it, don't give up....even if you suck and fail, at least you tried, that gives you a step up on most.

[Joe Rice]

I like the idea, but I would hate it if it went into armour and weapon fetishes so prevalent in fantasy, I would hate it if the character banged on about his sacred sword "chumsaggum" or something.


Yeah, that's definitely not going to happen, unless there's a higher-up in the military like that that everyone hates.

[howyadoin]

I like the idea, but I would hate it if it went into armour and weapon fetishes so prevalent in fantasy, I would hate it if the character banged on about his sacred sword "chumsaggum" or something.I'm with you there. I think I'd also hate it if it went out of its way to make fun of those cliches, though. 'Cause Tolkien satire is almost as overdone as Tolkien pastiche.

[Paul McEnery]

Tons of great advice here. Makes me wish I had something substantive to add, but I've pretty much given up any aspersions in the area of writing.

This is untrue.

Aspirations, yes. Aspersions, not so much.

[Ed Cunard]

I'm with you there. I think I'd also hate it if it went out of its way to make fun of those cliches, though. 'Cause Tolkien satire is almost as overdone as Tolkien pastiche.

That's actually one reason I'd be willing to give a Rice fantasy a shot. Fantasy, typically, is my least favorite of all genre writing. Rice is... fairly free of its influence, general nerdlore notwithstanding, and I imagine he'd draw more influence from Hammett, Fitzgerald, and Lethem, seasoned with the tone of a Wilfred Owen poem.

[Joe Rice]

I've never even read Tolkien.

[Corrina]

Joe,

How can you write if you consider what you want to write beneath you? I don't understand that.

For me, I write stuff I want to read but can't find on the shelves. First and foremost, especially first draft, my writing is for me because I can't imagine a life where I don't write. First draft, quality doesn't matter, getting the words on the page with your passion for the story matters.

So I honestly can't imagine the mindset where I think "I want to write this" and then think "well, that's beneath me." I might think "That's not my thing" or "I'd suck at that kind of writing because I don't like to read it." For instance, I can't write horror because I don't enjoy reading horror.

As Jeffrey said, there are lots of lyrical writers working in fantasy, like Madeline L'Engle or others. A lot of a writer's voice tends to come from the books they've loved, especially as a kid, even if it's subconscious, most writers absorb patterns they love from childhood. Maybe if you could connect back with those books, it would help? (For me, it'd be the Black Stallion books--I'm guessing not for you <g> but there are a lot of great lyrical childrens writers.)

Or not.

The only sure truth I've found about writing is that each individual writer finds their own way, their own methods, for putting words on the page in the order that they enjoy.

[Captain_Video]

I've never even read Tolkien.

There are a lot of songs in it, Lord of the rings, would be more faithful as a musical...he is also good at keeping things happy, light, drawing you in and then giving the characters horrors to deal with that make you fear for them.

Sadly though there is a lack of emotional connection to his characters in his work, very, very clinical.

[Chris Nowlin]

There are a lot of songs in it, Lord of the rings, would be more faithful as a musical...he is also good at keeping things happy, light, drawing you in and then giving the characters horrors to deal with that make you fear for them.

Sadly though there is a lack of emotional connection to his characters in his work, very, very clinical.

The narration treats them clinically and lets you emotionally connect with them. Isn't that the key?

[Paul McEnery]

The major cliche stuff would be in the background, really. The basic premise is about a young guy from a hick dirt farm town who joins the big army when the recruiter rides through just to get to go to the big metropolis and meet girls. The day after he gets there, war breaks out and he's shipped to a different hick dirt farm town where he spends his time crapping himself in between magic fireballs and evil goblin attacks or whatever.

Oh, and a B story (or maybe A story) about how he falls in love with two people at the same time and has trouble dealing with that.

You going to go all Chip Delaney on us, here?

But you know what it does sound a bit like, and that's the Flashman books. Or maybe the Half-cocked Jack bits of that Neil Stephenson book.

I reckon you could pull that off and write a saleable book for that market that's a cut or two above the average.

But you know: boy meets girl, boy meets other girl, boy has world's least sympathetic dilemma; that's not a sale in itself unless you can really draw boy's character out in two different directions with each girl. And boy goes off to kill people, boy gets stuck killing less interesting people than he'd hoped in a number of random incidents -- also shy of interest unless there's some serious character development, and the random incidents, womantic subplots, character developments build up to some kind of artistic unity.

Then again, I am not your natural audience for this.

[Captain_Video]

The narration treats them clinically and lets you emotionally connect with them. Isn't that the key?

I suppose I am just grouchy because Boromir, my favourite character gets the "Boromir died with fifty arrows in his chest, shame...moving on " treatment, in Lord of the Rings.

[Joe Rice]

Who's Chip Delaney?

[Ed Cunard]

I suppose I am just grouchy because Boromir, my favourite character gets the "Boromir died with fifty arrows in his chest, shame...moving on " treatment, in Lord of the Rings.

If you had a favorite character, you had an emotional connection.

[howyadoin]

This is untrue.

Aspirations, yes. Aspersions, not so much.Yikes. Embarassing.

[Captain_Video]

If you had a favorite character, you had an emotional connection.

Sniff...yes, but Tolkien didnt.

I wanted fifty pages of drawn out mourning.

Damn you orcs !!!

[Chris Nowlin]

Sniff...yes, but Tolkien didnt.

I wanted fifty pages of drawn out mourning.

Damn you orcs !!!

If it makes you feel better...

Superman probably cried
when he learned Boromir died



But then he also cries when he stubs a toe, and thus writers think they can hit that emotional note over and over again by writing their own version of Superman once again stubbing his toe and crying.

[Paul McEnery]

I've never even read Tolkien.

That'll help. Seriously.

You know what else I'm hearing?

Pratchett meets Marvels in the style of Faulkner's The Unvanquished. This Civil War story is told from the point of view of a kid who has to grow up fast, in a series of six narratives. Don't remember if they were written (and sold) as a short story series/serial, but that's how it comes out.

So trying things this way, as a bunch of self-contained stories that add up to something might well work. I'm imagining something called Footsoldier in which major things are happening all around, and this guy is stuck down in the nitty-gritty. Bunch of hairy-toed freaks come through, bunch of scary horsemen things come after them, everything gets torn the hell up, and Footsoldier has to take care of the crap end of the stick.

[Paul McEnery]

Who's Chip Delaney?

Samuel Delaney, top black gay sci-fi (and porn) writer from the New Wave. Did a graphic novel with Chaykin that's high fantasy space opera, called Empire. Got Hugo or something for space opera called Time Considered as a Helix of Semi-Precious Stones. It was the 70s, dig?

He's got a very high style, did a meta-sf book called The Einstein Intersection that's light, sharp and fun (if you're a smartarse nerd with a nostalgia jones). Later on, he did some deconstructive fantasy novels that wander around in high literary theory and sexual shenanigans, and yet also deliver what fantasy people want. Though what I prefer is his realistic novel Atlantis, which does something of a Faulkner riff, but from a black point of view.

It's the high-style smartarsery (with filthy bits) I meant.

[Winslow]

Great thread.

Most of my life experiences would make for boring reading, so the whole write what you know doesn't work for me.

Corrina suggested using childhood memmories and interests as a guide. That's what gets my creative juices flowing. I have an idea for a graphic novel based on the G.I. Joe play and characters. I started to write a novel, but then got interested in comics.

Sniff...yes, but Tolkien didnt.

I wanted fifty pages of drawn out mourning.

Damn you orcs !!!

It's funny, but I hated Boromir as traitor when I first read Lord of the Rings.

I was probably only 11 or 12.

The movie actually treated his character better than the book.

[Paul McEnery]

If it makes you feel better...

Superman probably cried
when he learned Boromir died



But then he also cries when he stubs a toe, and thus writers think they can hit that emotional note over and over again by writing their own version of Superman once again stubbing his toe and crying.

There should be a Marvel/DC crossover. Cap and Supes watch Beaches and have a good sniffle.

[berk]

Good points, all. The problem here being that my idea kind of IS a Tolkien/DnD riff, which makes it all the worse. Just, hopefully, a more naturalistic, truly-emotive version about normaller, non-epic characters.I hesitate to say anything, since I'm no writer myself, but one question does spring to mind: are you sure that the Tolkien/DnD aspects are integral to the core of your idea? What happens when you try thinking about it without those elements? Is there anything left over that might conceivably attract you as a story idea just as much?

On the other hand, a naturalistic take on Tolkien could be interesting. And I agree with the suggestion of reading Tolkien first if that's where you want to go. It might be instructive to subsequently read one of the hundreds of Tolkien-derived things most people mean when they think of "fantasy" as a genre, just to see where the difference lies, beyond Tolkien just having come first.

[Pól Rua]

Yeah, I should try it.

I did think up a possibly interesting way to use magic, since you kind of have to in these things. I think it's original, but I also haven't read a fantasy book since I was in junior high.

Heh, maybe every thing I think is kind of original has been done to cliche by now.

Originality is overrated.
Sometimes, the reason why something looks like nobody's ever done it before is because it's a worthless idea and everyone who's ever had the idea before has realized that it's crap.

Of course, one of the problems with mainstream fantasy fiction is that, since Tolkein cannibalized northwestern European folklore, pretty much everyone's been cannibalizing Tolkein.
Unfortunately, fantasy offers lazy writers the classic deus ex machina - "Wizard did it" - which makes it tremendously appealing to lazy writers.

[Chris Nowlin]

"But how does it make sense that..."
"Magic"
"But then the character..."
"Magic"
"Why did the narrator say it's instead of its?"
"Magic"

[Jeff Brady]

I'm not smart enough to make a worthwhile contribution to this thread, so I'll ramble on about my process (leaving the artistic/visual stuff out).

Step one: Stream of conscious writing.

Step two: Read what I've written.

Step three: Research if needed.

Step four: Re-read.

Step five: Edit, rearrange until it resembles a story.

For fuck's sake, Joe. Just write.

[Kid Omega]

Seriously, dude.

You overthink this shit.

Remember when in college, you had all sorts of rules about art, and now you look back and are embarassed by them?

I wish I could fast-forward you to the point where the dissertations on "plot is the enemy" and "genre fiction sucks" are out of your system.

[Kid Omega]

I hesitate to say anything, since I'm no writer myself, but one question does spring to mind: are you sure that the Tolkien/DnD aspects are integral to the core of your idea? What happens when you try thinking about it without those elements? Is there anything left over that might conceivably attract you as a story idea just as much?

On the other hand, a naturalistic take on Tolkien could be interesting. And I agree with the suggestion of reading Tolkien first if that's where you want to go. It might be instructive to subsequently read one of the hundreds of Tolkien-derived things most people mean when they think of "fantasy" as a genre, just to see where the difference lies, beyond Tolkien just having come first.

The problem is that Joe hasn't read enough fantasy fiction (or any genre, really) to talk about it without his ass speaking for him.

[howyadoin]

I wish I could fast-forward you to the point where the dissertations on "plot is the enemy" and "genre fiction sucks" are out of your system.Hopefully reading Cryptonomicon was a step in that direction.

[Corrina]

Plot, to me, is what's required to send a character through a satisfying emotional arc.

The most famous of those is Campbell's hero's journey aka Luke Skywalker in Star Wars, which is a pretty much by the numbers treatment of it. But I just use that as a very well known example.

So start with a character and figure out what external events are needed to get that character emotionally to the place where you want him/her/it at the end.

Since we brought up Tolkien, Frodo's the unifying emotional arc there, as his fondest desire is to do everything it takes to protect the Shire. Except he has no idea what he's in for. And at the end, he fails. But he succeeds, because his mercy to Gollum allows Gollum to survive, and then the One Ring is destroyed.

But that's high fantasy and not necessarily about emotional arc. Eowyn is a better example--she'd reduced to a nursemaid to an old, ruined man and thus becomes as self-loathing as Theoden. By becoming a soldier and destroying the Nazghul King, she takes back that part of herself and can therefore move forward.

Figure out where your character is at the beginning, where you want them to be at the end. The plot is the series of external events used to drive the internal journey. That's why with storytelling, it's not the originality of the plot that matters, it's the truth of the emotional journey.

Anyway, that's how I do it. Again, the disclaimer is that every writer works differently. As the famous saying goes, there are three rules to writing. No one knows what they are.

[Shellhead]

Different writers interest me in different ways. In the fantasy genre, I have very limited patience with most of the Tolkien imitators. My favorites have worked in very different settings from anything Tolkien ever created.

Roger Zelazny drew from mythology and Machiavelli, with great economy in wording. Fritz Leiber's parents were Shakespearean actors, which inspired him in a different direction from Tolkien's work. Barry Hughart basically wrote Sherlock Holmes in ancient China, but with a very lively flair. Jack Vance wrote with an elaborate style that is very addictive to read. Lucius Shephard wrote magical realism in a central America of the very near future. Tim Powers wrote several great one-shot fantasy books set in various historical settings.

The important thing is not that you copy or avoid Tolkien, but that you write whatever you write YOUR WAY. Joe, even your posts here at CBR have a distinctive style. Trust that "voice" that you write with, and set it free to write whatever you want to write, free from concern about how it will read, at least during the first draft. Trust yourself enough to enjoy that freedom. Nobody else can write the exact way that you write, so even if you cover ground that other writers have visited, you will still have something distinctive to say in your own style. As somebody mentioned earlier in this thread, pick the size of the canvas that you will be working with and take it from there.

[Joe Rice]

Seriously, dude.

You overthink this shit.

Remember when in college, you had all sorts of rules about art, and now you look back and are embarassed by them?

I wish I could fast-forward you to the point where the dissertations on "plot is the enemy" and "genre fiction sucks" are out of your system.

Heheheheh, excellent point. I mean, to be clear, I simply just don't like plot (writing it or reading it usually). It's a little bit less head-up-my-rear than the days of olde. Not completely, though.

[Joe Rice]

The problem is that Joe hasn't read enough fantasy fiction (or any genre, really) to talk about it without his ass speaking for him.

Yeah, no doubt, but there's a lot of stuff I want to read before I even get into that.

[Nikita]

Heheheheh, excellent point. I mean, to be clear, I simply just don't like plot (writing it or reading it usually). It's a little bit less head-up-my-rear than the days of olde. Not completely, though.


Then why are you killing yourself and still trying to form one with your story? Why are you being so terribly hard on yourself and beating yourself up over this? You are not obligated to anyone, but you. You remind me so much of an old highschool friend I had years ago who could never get past these "mental walls" and hurdels he'd put before himself. When he did write, it was never good enough for him. So then he would just criticize his "process" until time would go by and sometimes he'd stop writing completely. He wanted to be a screenplay writer. Needless to say, he got "lost" as the years went on by his own self doubt and still hasen't done much with his writing.

If plot is not important to you, and you loathe sci-fi and fantasy, then why are you sentencing yourself to forever carry them as your personal "cross to bare" just to get a story finished because you feel almost obligated to? Drop those ideas for a while, and stick to the original story that you love. The one that's in your head about the guy going from town to town falling in love with various people. Leave the elves, and the fantasy part out completely. You don't need them. Your character doesn't need them. He just needs to be what you want him to be. Write a story full of your love of language instead of getting bogged down by a detailed plot and magical elves.

I've had artist's block on and off my whole life. And years ago, I even used to write, but severe writer's block took care of that. And now, I look at all the years I've wasted when I could have just been writing, instead of writing nothing. Don't obsess over the details. Just write down anything. Even if you think it's the biggest load of garbage on the planet. Just write it anyway.

Write what you know and/or write what you love. For those of us who have almost given up on writing completely, I applaude your efforts to keep going. But don't let yourself get caught in your own self doubt quick sand forever and ever. Your intelligence is overwhelming. Jesus, your first post was beautiful...just the way you word things, and put your thoughts together. I could see a character you create, saying those very same things in a story you write. And if you cringe when you think your story is becoming too autobiographical, so what? Let a little of yourself bleed into your characters. That's what makes them unique. Your teacher was right when he told you to wright about people. Clearly, he saw a brilliance in you that you're still not seeing or don't feel worthy enough to tap into yet.

I've always thought writers were much more "tortured" then artists. But if you torture yourself long enough, then you'll never really get a chance to be a writer.

Anyway, just my two cents. Good luck with your writing Joe.

[stealthwise]

My advice to Joe: If you want to write, then you're thinking too much.

Just write. You can always go back and edit stuff later and agonize over the stupid plot elements or lame dialogue that came to you spur-of-the-moment and seemed great at 4 am, but the important part is to not worry about it. Catch it later on the revision. Polish that sucker up afterwards, even if it takes you months or years. I know that as an English major for so long, you can't help but be critical, but read your own works like you would a friend. You can hate what's on the page, but be constructive when criticising yourself and be positive.

I wanted to be a writer for as long as I can remember, and I have the opposite problem. I love plot, and when I get an idea, I just fly with it. Then I look back later on and wince at the unclear dialogue, or weak description, etc.

I'm not a great writer, just a guy who has ideas that he likes to put down on the page. My favourite story is one that I wrote specifically for my wife. I didn't write it for anyone else I didn't have to worry about how deep the theme was, or how stylistic the dialogue is, or how appealing the main characters are, because the main characters were us. Hell, it's basically a two-person play acted out in a single room, but it's fleshed out because it's based on us. And I wouldn't change a thing about it.

Who are you writing for? That's the first question I would address. Pick someone, even yourself, and write. Don't compare yourself to your favourite writers, and if you hate genre fiction, then don't write genre fiction.

It's not write what you know, it's write what you WANT to write.

[stealthwise]

One more thing: Your writing should have conflict.

If you have no conflict, you have no story, just a bunch of events.

Fuck the plot, you can structure shit around a series of months, weeks, days, moments. You can make it linear, non-linear, non sequitir, unrelated events connected only by theme or by nothing at all, but without people having desires and other people or things getting in their way, intentionally or not, then you have no actual story.

[Joe Rice]

I definitely don't mind conflict.

But, yeah, I'm gonna work on this. Maybe I'll try writing one in genre and another just straight . . .I dunno, that may be a waste of time and effort.

[Typo Lad]

I've stopped worrying about genre. I tend to write stuff driven by the character. Genre is probably the last thing I think of.

[Lone Ranger]

This is an interesting thread. I skim most of it, but may have missed some bits so forgive me if I repeat something that's already been stated.

I think that, like Joe, we all have preferences when it comes to both writing and reading. I don't much care for certain genres, or certain writing styles but I can be engaged if the writer has done a sufficiently good job.

Alex noted that Joe had certain 'rules' about art back in college. I think that we can paint ourselves into a corner if we develop too many rules in life. Making absolute statement can certainly come back to haunt us and, at the very least, closes our minds just a little bit.

I used to write quite a bit. I actually won my high school's Creative Writing Award. I write about just about anything - sometimes the plot was important, sometimes the themes were important, sometime the style was important. The thing is, I never really knew what elements the writing would contain until I was a few thousands words into it.

I once wrote a 25 page fictional interview with Martin Scorcese - the interviewer were driving from LA to Las Vegas immediately after Scorcese was snubbed for the Oscar for Goodfellas. I wish I still had a copy of that as it was probably one of the funniest and most endearing things I've ever written, and I was 18.

As I tried to move into longer pieces (a few bad partial novels), I really had trouble with two things. The first is character growth. My characters were generally well presented at first, but I felt like I was just moving them through pretty obvious motions in order for them to evolve (I'd like to find a way for a male character to get some perspective on life without having to get dumped). The second major problem I've always had was maintaining whatever style/mood/atmosphere I discovered in those first few thousand words. Too many times, I started off as John Updike and somehow became Jack Kerouac. I'd like to explain that as some experimental form of literature, but it was mainly lack of focus. Those shortcomings have ultimately left me with a cold feeling about my writing so there hasn't been much of it in recent years.

As far as plot is concerned, I don't think it is everything and may not indeed be necessary at all. Those who have mentioned the importance of conflict are quite right, but I do think that more is needed. I don't want to say that resolution is needed, because that implies that everything needs to be wrapped up with a nice bow. I feel that good writing does need something concrete though - some form of advancement that allows the reader to feel that the conflict served a purpose and that by the end of the piece we have all complete some journey.

I recently blogged about last year's Mann Booker winner, The Inheritance of Loss. I stated that the writing was fluid and beautiful, but I was basically left with a feeling of 'So What?'. Perhaps I missed something, but I was disatisfied with the conclusion (or lack thereof).

[Paul McEnery]

Heheheheh, excellent point. I mean, to be clear, I simply just don't like plot (writing it or reading it usually). It's a little bit less head-up-my-rear than the days of olde. Not completely, though.

Y'know, there's nothing wrong with having arbitrary and abstract enemies. Georges Perec wrote a lovely book by excluding the letter e.

Attacking the novel form by hating something arbitrary like plot might work. Especially for a footsoldier character.

[Tages]

Wow, I get stuck in the Sierra Nevada for the weather and miss out on a discussion on one of my favorite subjects. Blargh.

Anyhow, I'll go further into depth later, but my thoughts as to genre fiction vs. "serious fiction?" Galsworthy is "literature," Wodehouse isn't. John Updike is "important," Dashiell Hammett isn't.

Fuck important literature.

[the film freak]

I definitely don't mind conflict.

But, yeah, I'm gonna work on this. Maybe I'll try writing one in genre and another just straight . . .I dunno, that may be a waste of time and effort.

I think 90% of the creative process is wasting time and effort.

[Slam_Bradley]

Corrina suggested using childhood memmories and interests as a guide. That's what gets my creative juices flowing. I have an idea for a graphic novel based on the G.I. Joe play and characters. I started to write a novel, but then got interested in comics.



Corrina made a good point. Ray Bradbury focused his career on metaphors from his childhood. Once he got past the space-opera pastiches that plagued his earliest works he became one of the great writers of the 20th Century, built largely on working with metaphors from his childhood on the American Plains.

[Slam_Bradley]

With regards to Joe's dilemma...Get over yourself. I like you Joe, and you have talent, but there is absolutely nothing about you that makes you "better" than a genre piece. The problem lies not in the genre but in yourself. If you aren't talented enough to elevate the genre then hang it up.

[Ray R.]

I think 90% of the creative process is wasting time and effort.

And the other 10% is bitching about the creative process......

[Corrina]

Yeah, well, I've had to learn a lot of tricks to keep my writing going, so I've tried everything. :)

The thing is, I've managed to write six books of over 85,000 words since the year 2000, plus a whole bunch of non-fiction articles. Now, some of those books aren't good, especially my first manuscript which totally sucks, but the more I write, the better I get. So I'm not big at all on waiting to do it perfectly. Even if someone is an insanely talented musician, they still have to practice. Yet writers seem to think the work has to be perfect the minute they start, which really makes no sense.

Practice, practice. I'm big on getting words on the page.

[Ryan Day]

One of the biggest problems I've had is getting over my sense of perfectionism. Not that anything I write is even remotely perfect, but it's frustrating when things don't come out exactly as I want them to on the first try. It's only recently I've been able to just skip sections entirely and come back to them later. People say "Oh, you're an editor - that must help a lot", but it hurts just as much, since I have a hard time switching between my Editor and Writer hats.

And I'm with Joe: I hate plot. Or, at least, plot hates me. I can handle concepts and characters, but then they never seem to do anything. There's a lot of sitting around talking about things, but I have a tough time moving things forward.

[Paul McEnery]

One of the biggest problems I've had is getting over my sense of perfectionism. Not that anything I write is even remotely perfect, but it's frustrating when things don't come out exactly as I want them to on the first try. It's only recently I've been able to just skip sections entirely and come back to them later. People say "Oh, you're an editor - that must help a lot", but it hurts just as much, since I have a hard time switching between my Editor and Writer hats.

And I'm with Joe: I hate plot. Or, at least, plot hates me. I can handle concepts and characters, but then they never seem to do anything. There's a lot of sitting around talking about things, but I have a tough time moving things forward.

That's never been a problem for Kevin Smith.

Then again, maybe he's filled that niche good and tight.

[Agent Helix]

I think David Mamet is gonna put a hit out on Joe for this thread.

[Ed Cunard]

I think David Mamet is gonna put a hit out on Joe for this thread.

Mamet hasn't had a hit in years.

[rimshot]

[Agent Helix]

I dunno, Spartan was pretty great.

[the film freak]

With regards to Joe's dilemma...Get over yourself. I like you Joe, and you have talent, but there is absolutely nothing about you that makes you "better" than a genre piece. The problem lies not in the genre but in yourself. If you aren't talented enough to elevate the genre then hang it up.

Can't argue with that.

I mean you should just stop worrying about this stuff and just actually write. Save time worrying when you actually have something finished.

[Tages]

Mamet hasn't had a hit in years.

[rimshot]

My friend the Mamet fan read that over my shoulder and yelled "Boston Marriage is a hit play!"

[Paul McEnery]

My friend the Mamet fan read that over my shoulder and yelled "Boston Marriage is a hit play!"

Wow. I've never heard of oral typos before.





















Not that I know anything about Boston Marriage. Is it by any chance about a con artist?

[Tages]

Wow. I've never heard of oral typos before.





















Not that I know anything about Boston Marriage. Is it by any chance about a con artist?

Nah, drawing room comedy.

Now Mike's all riled up and listing off all the great things about Mamet. He won't stop until 8.

[Ed Cunard]

Nah, drawing room comedy.

Now Mike's all riled up and listing off all the great things about Mamet. He won't stop until 8.

There's eight great things about Mamet?

[rimshot]

[Justin Davis]

I'm late to the party so many of my response may just be me agreeing with others. First thing I want to comment on is the use of the words "genre fiction". All fiction is genre fiction.

Maybe I'm missing the context, but it sounds like you were writing about people and he missed it.

That's what I thought too. I read what you said, Joe, but if the professor was essentially telling you that removing it from science fiction would automatically make it a better story, then he had a serious stick up his ass.

I want to see it but know it'll scare the wife too much.

And bingo on me in this post.

Pan's Labyrinth isn't scary, except for one short scene with the monster who has his eyes in his hands. It's not what I would call a fantasy film either. While I've read about how everyone is falling all over themselves about this movie, I thought it was just ok. Kristina thought the same. What we came away with is that we simply weren't emotionally connected enough to some of the characters to be affected by what happened to them. Also, there were a couple plot holes that I found it hard to get through. I would've let them go if I cared more about the characters. It's still an utterly beautiful film.

Too proud . . .

I'm too damn proud to write fantasy. That's the problem right there. I find it undignified and somewhat feel that the very attempt would be an outright admission of my own lack of worth artistically, a lack of worth I deeply suspect anyway.

Wow, that's impressive. That is an awesome bit of introspection you've done there.

To quote another high-brow source:

"Two words, Charlie. Therapy."

Seriously? TRY IT. Write some crazy, off-the-wall genre shit and get it out of your system. Then, look to see what you've made, and rewrite it into something and pay attention to the craft.

You may surprise yourself, nerd.

This, I agree with.

Yeah, I should try it.

I did think up a possibly interesting way to use magic, since you kind of have to in these things. I think it's original, but I also haven't read a fantasy book since I was in junior high.

Heh, maybe every thing I think is kind of original has been done to cliche by now.

A well-written story is a well-written story, no matter what. I've never once read a vampire novel. I don't think I'd like most of them. The closest I've come to vampires is Buffy and Nicolas Cage in Vampire's Kiss. However, I came up with what I think is an interesting concept and some characters that involves vampirism. For all I know, this concept has been touched on before. I don't care though because I'm writing it anyway.

The major cliche stuff would be in the background, really. The basic premise is about a young guy from a hick dirt farm town who joins the big army when the recruiter rides through just to get to go to the big metropolis and meet girls. The day after he gets there, war breaks out and he's shipped to a different hick dirt farm town where he spends his time crapping himself in between magic fireballs and evil goblin attacks or whatever.

Oh, and a B story (or maybe A story) about how he falls in love with two people at the same time and has trouble dealing with that.

I'd read that. Hopefully, that's not a cue for you to refuse writing it. It also sounds a lot like many science fiction and fantasy books I've read before. I don't mean the exact idea you laid out, but the "here's a relatable event that happens to a relatable character who happens to be in this particular environment". That's really what separates so much fiction, environment.

"But how does it make sense that..."
"Magic"
"But then the character..."
"Magic"
"Why did the narrator say it's instead of its?"
"Magic"

What is that from?

I'm not smart enough to make a worthwhile contribution to this thread, so I'll ramble on about my process (leaving the artistic/visual stuff out).

Step one: Stream of conscious writing.

Step two: Read what I've written.

Step three: Research if needed.

Step four: Re-read.

Step five: Edit, rearrange until it resembles a story.

This is a lot like how I write. Although, I usually write a little, read it, edit it, read it, research if I have to, write more, edit it, and repeat.

Heheheheh, excellent point. I mean, to be clear, I simply just don't like plot (writing it or reading it usually). It's a little bit less head-up-my-rear than the days of olde. Not completely, though.

I've thought about your dislike of plot and how just saying that doesn't sit right to me. How about you dislike plot when it sacrifices the characters? Or You dislike plot when it seems like the characters themselves are secondary and could easily be switched around or replaced without much, or any, change to the overall plot?

I've stopped worrying about genre. I tend to write stuff driven by the character. Genre is probably the last thing I think of.

I read a lot of science fiction. I have shelves of books sitting at home and more that I've given away or sold. Yet, I've never written any science fiction other than a few notes or a half-hearted start on a book (or a comic or a screenplay, I couldn't decide). It's not a dislike I have for writing it though.

Honestly, I think it may be because I know how much work is put into writing some science fiction, and I may be too lazy to do the research.

With regards to Joe's dilemma...Get over yourself. I like you Joe, and you have talent, but there is absolutely nothing about you that makes you "better" than a genre piece. The problem lies not in the genre but in yourself. If you aren't talented enough to elevate the genre then hang it up.

Those are some hard words spoken from a hard man. But they're good words too. I think you're too busy seeing all the superficial trappings of particular genres that you're not seeing what lies below them.

There is a similarity here between what you say about certain genres of writing and what many people who don't read comic books say about comic books. Or even pare it down more to superhero comics in particular.

[Joe Rice]

Good stuff here . . .great thread. I don't "dislike" plot so much as hate the reliance or focus on it. To me, it's a background thing. Like Pullman said, the backbeat, really. Not necessary but often helpful but rarely worth looking at over the rest.

[Joe Rice]

And movies don't have to be scary to scare Lisa. Just so you know.

Slam: Blam, right there, yes.

[Michael P]

Yet writers seem to think the work has to be perfect the minute they start, which really makes no sense.

This is totally me.

[howyadoin]

This is totally me.See, to me that's why writing outlines and stuff comes in handy - so a lot of the details are already sorted by the time it comes to the actual writing, and you can concentrate on that.

[Pól Rua]

I think 90% of the creative process is wasting time and effort.

Yup. 10% Inspiration, 90% Procrastination.

[Slam_Bradley]

Yup. 10% Inspiration, 90% Procrastination.

What about the masterbation. That has a significant percentage.

[DrewTheXenocide]

What about the masterbation. That has a significant percentage.
Well, isn't that how one procrastinates?

[Wesley Dodds]

What about the masterbation. That has a significant percentage.

Yeah -- about 15%.

A well-written story is a well-written story, no matter what. I've never once read a vampire novel. I don't think I'd like most of them. The closest I've come to vampires is Buffy and Nicolas Cage in Vampire's Kiss. However, I came up with what I think is an interesting concept and some characters that involves vampirism. For all I know, this concept has been touched on before. I don't care though because I'm writing it anyway.

I'd like to see a vampire novel where the theme is "it's cool to be a vampire", the way the theme of Scud was "it's cool to be a robot."

"Dude! I'm immortal and chicks beg me to do 'em! DUDE!"

And, for the record, the best vampire story of all time is "Cassidy: Blood and Whiskey".

[Captain_Video]

Well, isn't that how one procrastinates?

Only if you don't finish.

[Justin Davis]

Good stuff here . . .great thread. I don't "dislike" plot so much as hate the reliance or focus on it. To me, it's a background thing. Like Pullman said, the backbeat, really. Not necessary but often helpful but rarely worth looking at over the rest.

It's just a matter of tastes then. I don't see plot as a background thing. At least not all the time. There are some stories where I enjoy thinking about how the story moves along, where it came from, and where it's going. Of course, there are other stories where the way the story is laid out actually makes the plot distracting to the overall reading experience. The reader becomes so wrapped up in looking for a pattern that the rest of the story comes across as little more than words filling space until the next movement of the plot. Plot and character development (or at least, character logic) should intertwine in well-done stories, but it's not always the easiest thing to make that happen so it seems natural. Ever see the movie The Game with Michael Douglas? It's one of my favorite movies because it uses the plot to advance the development of the main character. Without certain actions, the character would not have grown to become who he was at the end.

A well-written story is a well-written story, no matter what. I've never once read a vampire novel. I don't think I'd like most of them. The closest I've come to vampires is Buffy and Nicolas Cage in Vampire's Kiss. However, I came up with what I think is an interesting concept and some characters that involves vampirism. For all I know, this concept has been touched on before. I don't care though because I'm writing it anyway.

I'd like to see a vampire novel where the theme is "it's cool to be a vampire", the way the theme of Scud was "it's cool to be a robot."

"Dude! I'm immortal and chicks beg me to do 'em! DUDE!"

A female vampire in my story is like that. She's a homicidal bitch who gets off on killing people, but she loves what she is. Spike may be the only person at CBR who's read any of it. His response? Something along the lines of "That's fucked up. I want to read more."

And, for the record, the best vampire story of all time is "Cassidy: Blood and Whiskey".

That is a good story.

[Corrina]

Well, Spike from "Buffy" was pretty damn happy to be a vampire. It beat his old life, big time. He liked being a vamp in this world, loved watching people, his 'happy meals with legs." Being a vamp got him the girl, respect, and a cool leather jacket.

There was some angsting at the end of the show but in his original appearances, Spike was having a helluva lot of fun, which is probably why so many people loved the character in the beginning. He also got all the good lines.