Friday, August 6, 2010

The Art of the Awful


A reader recently sent me a question on Twitter...

“May I ask a question? How do you write a scene in a book that is violent without crossing a line of being too graphic -- so the reader is not disgusted or doesn’t read it because of the level of violence and how graphic it is.”

A good question, and I can only assume I’ve succeeded in doing that in my first two novels, or she wouldn’t have asked me the question. At least I hope so. One of the best reviews I got for my first published story, “Plaything”, came from Linda Addison, a fellow writer in the anthology, who said it was the most repulsive thing she’d ever read, but she couldn’t put it down because she had to know what happened next. Bingo. That’s exactly where you want to be.

After publication of Edgar Allen Poe’s "Berenice" he was asked to tone down the more horrific elements in the name of propriety after complaints from editors. (And it is an extremely perverse love story involving tooth fetishism and premature burial...) He defended it by claiming he was giving the public what they wanted, but later cut down the offending paragraphs and promised not to go overboard again.

There are two lessons to me there -- people do want the cheap thrills of fictitious horror, but they also want to stay safe, sane, and feel better afterwards. No one wants to leave a roller coaster with spinal injuries or vomiting up blood...why should we expect less of our horror entertainment? Its effectiveness is all in the balance. To me, violence, fear and horror are just a handful of the many emotive tools in a novelist’s bag of tricks. You can use them as needed, but always as sparingly as you use any other. It doesn’t help any story to be too heavy in one area -- terror, romance, suspense, laughs -- a successful story is a musical arrangement that allows all the elements to flow naturally, blending and balancing each other to tell a complete story.

Stephen King once described writing horror stories as akin to luring someone into an alley with promises that it’s safe, then jumping them as soon as they’re out of sight of the street -- or words to that effect. A good scary story is always a seduction. The most effective chills are willing and complicit, symbiotic; readers are letting themselves be scared with the assumption that there’s something in it for them. Usually that’s a release of their own fear or anxiety in sharing the character’s build up and release of theirs. Catharsis. For me, it’s the primary use of horror. So, how do you get a reader to stick with you long enough to get that release?

I’ve written things that appall me. Chapter Two in my first novel "BITE MARKS" is a good example. It was the earliest written scene of deep horror in the book, and is one of a handful of chapters that remained essentially the same by publication. A teenage prostitute is brought back to life by a vampire, forced to feed on her own infant, and then brutally killed again. I won’t go into how here (buy the book!), but suffice to say that it’s damn grim and from the beginning was something I eventually expected someone to make me cut.

Amazingly, scores of women readers have never even mentioned it when they talked to me about the book. To me it was the most awful and misogynistic act in the book -- yet it was widely accepted. It took a review on a website for me to understand that it was seen by readers as what it is -- a graphic act of rape -- and that women understand the range of sexual violence men can perform against women far better than men do.

I had hit a moment of truth in my horror. Rule one for me in writing violence. Be truthful -- not factual, as many acts of violence in fiction, especially in horror fiction, can be surreal, even impossible -- but be true to the emotional reality you’re writing. Is what is happening justified by the circumstances and characters you’ve set in motion? Which brings me to my next point.

Don’t use violence excessively or just for cheap thrills. It’s far too easy to go overboard once you open that door. My graphic opening to "BITE MARKS" was entirely necessary to set up everything to come, and for that reason, justified. It was also strong enough that I could build up the story and characters for chapters after that without any additional use of gore, because each page the reader turned after that was informed with the dread of what horror might be next.

There are movies and books I don’t enjoy simply because they are what has become termed “gore-nography” -- shedding blood and body parts in increasingly graphic ways just because we can show it on screen or get it into print, with little or no other reason. There are terror tales out now that make Poe’s “Berenice” look like Dr. Suess. This isn’t always a good thing. Violence is at its most effective when used to make a point or to explain a character’s progress in the story -- driven to avenge a horrific act, or trying to unravel it, as in “Death Wish” and Jody Foster's homage, "The Brave One", or in “Seven”.

Humor also helps. You don’t want to undercut your mood, but a light touch of grim wit can make the medicine go down easier. It should be from the point of view of a character in the moment -- it's difficult to make a joke at your heroes' expense as an omniscient author and maintain the reader’s sympathy for them, though they certainly can. I'm sure if you look at your own life, you’ll find moments where the perverse humor in a bad situation becomes clear as you’re trying to get out of it. Used delicately, a little jest, no matter how darkly ironic, can ease enough tension to keep the reader going on without killing the moment.

Subjective viewpoint is useful. Even if you bounce from head to head, depict the violence from that point of view, not your own. Whether it’s the POV of the victim or victimizer, a subjective character voice can lend verisimilitude to what you’re writing, but also give you a way to contain it. While a horrific moment may be impossible to read when described from the victim’s view, seeing it from an eyewitness or even the victimizer’s side can open new possibilities for the writer as the reader experiences the bliss, vengeance, or whatever the character is experiencing while they either witness or wreak havoc. Few killers or torturers act for no reason -- making their motives clear can keep readers interested long enough to get through the acts described.

Language is also enormously important. How do you describe these things? What words best convey your meaning without repulsing? You can be discreet and still horrify. Hitchcock, to use another film example, was a master at making you imagine “between the lines”, giving you just enough information for your brain to fill in the rest.

This is my favorite technique, to make the reader work for and with you to make the moment as scary as only they themselves can make it. It takes time to get the hang of it -- I don’t mean throwing in references to “unimaginable” monstrosities, as Lovecraft so often does, but to masterfully describing the edges of things. Again, in Chapter Two of "BITE MARKS", as you read it’s clear how Adam is killing Nina -- but the words I use don’t come out and say it explicitly. You have to work a bit to imagine what’s happening, which makes it all the more awful, because you become intimately involved in the experience as you visualize it. You don’t have to bludgeon or brutalize a reader to make your point -- sometimes a few gentle nudges in the right direction will get them where you want them much more effectively, without their noticing until it’s too late.

The rhythm of the build is important as well. The shower scene in “Psycho” is effective because it comes out of nowhere, but if you watch the preceding scenes, it’s set up brilliantly. Marion’s affair with a married man and theft of her employer’s money, her flight and arrival at the Bates Motel at night in a storm, the introduction of seemingly innocent Norman in a quiet conversation that veers to the disturbing in a gloomy room filled with sinister stuffed animals...by the time Marion steps into the shower you have a feeling of disquiet you can’t quite put your finger on. When a shadowy figure appears through the shower curtain as she bathes, you’re already waiting for something to happen -- what does was shocking at the time, and surprising, but also inevitable. Set your scene well before your violence takes center stage.

Lastly, use your own judgment.

You are always your first reader. Unless you are a complete sociopath or psychotic with a literary bent (and I’m sure there are many), you have a strong moral center and a good sense of social limits. What do YOU think of what you’ve written? Does it give you the effect you want, or just make you a little queasy inside? Unless that’s what you want the reader to feel, go back, revisit it, rewrite and adjust until it does what you want it to do.

Rewrites are your best friend. I’m always suspicious of writers who claim to turn out perfect prose at one sitting and say they never have to revisit it. Ever. They are egotistical and lazy. For me, the fun is in reworking and shaping the original text until it becomes a key that unlocks the door you want opened in as many minds as possible. I don’t expect every writer to be as committed to process, but to me publication is aftermath and anticlimactic -- the real fun is in the writing.

Okay, enough. Run along now. Daddy has dragons to slay. Go ye forth and multiply the horrors in your heart -- just remember to keep them leashed so they don’t crap all over the neighbor’s lawns. I don’t want them interrupting me all day when they call to say you told them I said it was okay.

But it is. Writing horror or violence is like owning a gun. Use it properly, as you should and where you should, and we’ll all be just fine.

Thursday, August 5, 2010

Achieving Clarity of Mind

Some writers get much writing done in the interstices of their lives, in the five minutes here and the ten minutes there between appointments and chores and while waiting in lines.

I'm not one of those writers. I need my mind free of other distractions to create. One of the many reasons I became a full-time fiction writer was to achieve that clarity of mind, because my clients' work occupied too much of my mental landscape.

Now that I have only one small copyediting client left, though, I still have too much mental junk. Here is some of what clutters my brain and destroys my focus:
  • My continuing small job for my single client; I receive each newsletter to edit in several pieces over a week or two, so I am often anticipating the next batch of articles.
  • Volunteering. I want to give back to organizations I belong to, so I try not to say "no" to every request for help. The result: more things to plan, organize, schedule, do, and think about.
  • All the lab tests and doctor and pharmacy visits my health problems require. More scheduling, organizing, and planning.
  • Critiquing. I enjoy critiquing my friends' stories, and doing so certainly improves my writing. But it also keeps stories that aren't mine floating about in my head, collecting ideas for improvements.
  • Household time sinks, such as the four-hour window that most service people schedule. I find it hard to write when part of my attention must focus on the doorbell.

What are the answers to better clarity of mind? I don't know. Here are some things I've tried, with some success:
  • Wearing a special bracelet when I'm writing to remind myself not to sabotage my concentration by wandering the Web and checking Facebook.
  • Being mindful of my choices of music or silence, depending on my writing project.
  • Getting the mail, eating meals, and taking other breaks at natural stopping points in my writing instead of in the middle of a thought.
  • Practicing yoga to develop more control of wandering thoughts.
  • "Clear desk, clear mind." The problem is, I hate taking time away from writing to straighten up, so I don't often get the chance to benefit from this technique.

Is your busy life causing problems in focusing on your writing? If so, what solutions have you found?


Thank you for stopping by today. I'll be blogging again at Novel Spaces on August 21. Hope you are having a great summer!

—Shauna Roberts

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Potentially Anticompetitive E-Book Deals With Amazon And Apple


Attorney General Investigates Potentially Anticompetitive E-Book Deals With Amazon And Apple:


I found this interesting. The agreements block cheaper prices for the consumer and discourages discounting.




Just wanted to share. Write on!





Monday, August 2, 2010

Law & Order: Special Writing Unit


Here’s the scenario:

The writing police are at your door, and boy, do they look pissed.

A snitch tipped them off that you haven’t been putting in your regular writing hours. In fact, you haven’t looked at your WIP in days.

“I’ve been busy,” you whine.

The biggest of the cops surrounding you puts his hand on his Taser, and he’s just itching to use it. He hates excuses.

“But I have writer’s block,” you cry.

A German Shepherd from the K9 unit growls.

Fed up with your feeble explanations, the cops slap the handcuffs around your wrists. They’re hauling you off to do a stint in writer’s jail – just you and your WIP.

Before they toss you in the patrol car, a kindly officer takes pity on you.
“I’ll allow you one craft book for inspiration – but just ONE,” she says.

Me? I already know which book I’d pick, “Chapter After Chapter: Discover the Dedication and Focus You Need to Write the Book of Your Dreams” by Heather Sellers.

This book guides you through the how-to’s novel writing with the precision of a GPS navigator. Seller’s practical advice is mixed with encouragement that makes writing a novel very do-able.

Now it’s your turn. Remember, you can only pick one!

What’s your favorite writing book?

Sunday, August 1, 2010

Author Blurbs: Yeah! or Meh.

“This book is the best thing I’ve ever read.” - Popular USA Today Best-Selling Author

“Breathtaking! Don’t miss this rising new star!” - Even More Popular New York Times Best-Selling Author

Does the above really do anything for you?

When it comes to book promotion, it is probably easier to catch a fly with vinegar than it is to figure out the return on your investment. However, of all the unknowns regarding publishing and promotion, the one that really sticks out for me is the influence of author blurbs. Personally, I’m not convinced there is one. Will a reader really be more likely to buy a book if another author has given it their stamp of approval?

In my opinion, a more interesting question is whether or not an author blurb can potentially harm a book’s sales? What if someone chooses not to buy a book because they don’t like the work of the author who wrote a blurb for it? Would it have been better to simply not have a blurb at all?

I suspect I’m in the minority on this. There would not be so many authors blurbing books if there was no credible reason for it, right? Still, for me, the author blurb takes me back to high school. Remember when you wanted the cool kids to like you, so you tried to glom onto the really cool kid in hopes their coolness would somehow rub off on you? Sounds a bit harsh, but hey, I’m being honest here.

There’s a huge chance that I’m also being remarkably naïve by not recognizing the importance of author blurbs, but as of right now I’m just not convinced it makes a huge difference. (Side note: I’m making a list of potential authors I’d like blurbs from if it turns out that there is evidence that it will help book sales. I have no problem eating crow. I just throw a little Cajun seasoning on it and swallow it down.)

I want to know your thoughts. For those of you who believe wholeheartedly in the benefit of having a well-known author’s praise on your book cover, let me know why? For readers out there, who has bought a book because of an author blurb? Or, better yet, who hasn’t bought a book because of one?

Saturday, July 31, 2010

Guest author Patricia Wrede: A Group of One's Own

Patricia Wrede sold her first novel, Shadow Magic, while working as a financial analyst and writing in her spare time. In 1982 she became a founding member of the Interstate Writers' Workshop, aka the Scribblies, to which she belonged for five extremely productive years. In 1985 she decided to quit her day job and write. Since then, she has made her living as a fiction writer. Shadow Magic was followed by Daughter of Witches (1983), The Harp of Imach Thyssel (1985), and Caught in Crystal (1987), among others in the "Lyra" series. These were followed by four novels in the Chronicles of the Enchanted Forest series, as well as short stories, Regency fantasy novels and Star Wars adaptations for Scholastic, among the numerous other works in her prolific publishing career.


January of this year marked the thirtieth anniversary of the first time six would-be writers in Minneapolis got together and formed a critique group. Within five years, all seven of the eventual members sold, and six are still publishing (the seventh went back to his first love, music and songwriting). You may have heard of us: the Scribblies, aka the Interstate Writer's Workshop. Me, Steven Brust, Pamela Dean, Kara Dalkey, Will Shetterly, Emma Bull, and Nate Bucklin.

Ever since, I occasionally get asked what we did so right. Why were the Scribblies so successful?

I've had a lot of chances to observe other writing groups since we all got started, and I've been in a few of them myself, and I think a large part of the answer to that question is, we were lucky, and I don't mean lucky about our writing or our submissions. I mean lucky in the people we ended up with in the group. Because we didn't ask each other any questions about what we wanted before we got started (except of course "Do you want to join a writing group?"). We just jumped right in. And the first and biggest reason I've seen why some writing groups stick together and others fall apart (after the sort of personality conflicts that can occur in any sort of group) is a mismatch in the expectations and needs of the various members.

It seems to me that there are three basic things that writing groups do: they provide a social group of people who have similar interests, they provide a support group of people who understand the hard parts of the job, and they provide serious comment and criticism that's hard to get anywhere else these days. Most groups perform all three functions to some extent, but most also end up focusing primarily on one of the three.

The problem comes when someone who really needs a support group ends up in one where most of the other people want serious criticism, or someone who really wants lots of good criticism ends up in a mostly-social group. If people don't recognize that some folks need and want a different mix, the best outcome is that some of the members will quietly leave. The worst outcome involves blowups and shouting and friendships that may never recover.

I've been a visitor at meetings where it was simply taken for granted that nobody would say "anything mean" – meaning, you weren't expected to say anything negative at all, not so much as pointing out typos. When they got to me and the group leader said, "Now, we're going to get some of that real Scribblies criticism!" I had to tell them that no, they weren't. Because while we certainly included positive comments, "real Scribblies criticism" very much involved saying negative things. We pointed out everything from weak characterization to plot inconsistencies, pacing problems, slithery viewpoint, and awkward or ambiguous sentences, and we weren't nice or hesitant about it, either. We didn't have the time.

Because that's the other reason I think we were so successful: We all took both our writing and the group very, very seriously. We had six members to begin with; seven, eventually, and at the beginning there was rarely a meeting where we didn't have material from at least four people to go over (and it wasn't always the same four). Once we hit our stride, we generally had at least six people with material every month, and we had to go to two-to-three-week intervals in order to keep from having ten-hour marathon critique sessions. Very occasionally, someone wouldn't have time to read and critique everything before the meeting; even more rarely, life would intervene and someone would miss a meeting, but neither happened very often.

The Scribblies were a critique group with occasional support and social functions. We photocopied our pages and passed them out to other members a week or so before each meeting, so everyone would have time to read them and scribble comments in the margins before the meeting. At the meeting we went over each project (usually a chapter or three of a novel, but sometimes a short story, and on a few memorable occasions, complete novels that the author had been storing up to dump on us in one fell swoop) page by page, with everyone making whatever points they had and arguing about them.

The author wasn't prohibited from joining the discussion, but he or she didn't get any more floor time than anyone else, and had the ultimate right to cut off discussion by saying "Thank you, I will think about that." Once in a while, the author would say "OK, what I was trying to do here was X, and obviously it didn't work" and we'd discuss why it didn't and what could be done instead, but mostly, as I remember it, we didn't make suggestions unless the author asked for them. We just pointed out things we thought were problems and things we really liked, and let the author decide what to change and how during revision.

Meetings were all very chaotic, with lots of arm-waving, occasional eye-rolling, and quarts of coffee and tea. We took breaks now and again (you really can't go for ten hours straight without snacks or pizza or take-out or something), but we kept them short. We never had a leader; we never needed one.

I learned an enormous amount from the Scribblies, as much of it from doing the critique of other people's work as from having my own done. Still, I don't recommend crit groups for everyone. Some people are hermits, or just can't accept comments, or need a writing group that provides more support or socializing. If it's not for you, don't force yourself. For those who are interested, though, it can be a great experience and very, very good for your writing.

Patricia Wrede

Friday, July 30, 2010

No Such Thing

I'm on vacation. My first real bit of respite all year. Aaaaah.....

Of course: I drove. . . Ten hours. . . With three kids. . . After a half day of running errands and scrambling to tie up loose ends. Still, respite, yes.

Somewhere amid the midnight darkness of I-55, while my rental car stereo (we forgot the CDs!) was desperately scanning for palatable music, we landed on John Mayer. "I just found out there's no such thing as the real world -- just a lie you've got to rise above." My college-aged son sat in the passenger seat beside me, both of us belting out the lyrics, my mind nodding fiercely in agreement with that simple truth: No such thing.

Fitting then, that I am vacationing at home. Not the house I grew up in -- my parents divorced many years ago, live in states far apart from each other with the new spouses, and other unknown people inhabit the eat/sleep/play place of my youth.

Still, this is home. My father and one sibling remain in suburban St. Louis. Cousins, old friends, and all of life's early memories that have hung on this long remain here. Home, then, is spirit. It's the connection to the faith that these are the people who love me and mine, that they will fight for my well-being, that they love me best in blue jeans, sandals and a ponytail. I love them, too.

Yet, how hard I fought in my youth to get away from home! Oh, I couldn't wait to run off to college and then immediately afterward I disappeared into the young adult struggles of finding self, job, housing, mate -- "a life."

All these years later, I realize that at some point I came full circle. Going home was no concession to weakness. It's the place that gave me the spunk, wherewithal and tools I needed to become who I wanted to be. And these are the innards that make me a better fiction writer.

While readers opt for escapism when they choose to read our made-up stories, those novels that fail to connect with the basic emotions of hurdling life and its challenges get chucked as unrealistic, hard to believe, bad books. Ironic, yes? But I guess it just goes to prove what John Mayer voiced in song, "there's no such thing as the real world." It's just a lie we have to write above.

Stefanie
www.stefanieworth.com