Thursday, October 7, 2010

Workin' on some writin'


Just keep swimming.

When my novels first showed up on shelves, I got interviewed by a couple of local newspapers. One question they loved to ask was "You're a teacher, how do you have time to write?"

My standard answer was: I leave work around 3:30 and write until I hit 1,000 words. That's kind of a lie. I mean, it sounded good, it made me look good, and I always shot for 1000 words.

But it didn't always happen.

My real answer is I leave at 3:30 and write what I can. Some days it's 250 words. Some days it's 1,500. Today it was 640 and I stopped in the middle of a scene.

Listen, teaching is tough and mentally draining. Sometimes my brain just won't function enough to get me through a scene. Sometimes life gets in the way. I mean, it probably evens out 1,000 words a day in the long run, but it's never exactly 1,000 words.

But what I do love is when I'm teaching writing and something I say or a kid says or a colleague says in class something and it sets off that spark. When I have a moment of clarity about the piece I'm working on.

That happened the other day. I can't really remember what I was talking about in class, but a word I said sparked something. That afternoon, I got home and was really productive. The words flowed out of my fingers, I had a definite end point of the chapter in mind.

And the last sentence I wrote gave me chills.

And that's the fun of writing and teaching. You never know where the inspiration is going to come from.

And sometimes it doesn't come, but at least I get words down. At least I keep the forward motion.

It reminds me of that Dorrie from FINDING NEMO.

Just keep swimming.

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

The Episodic Serial

by
John McFetridge

Earlier this week on her blog, Patti Abbott asked for, “One Suggestion For Improving TV Shows,” and offered her own; stop having a scene with each major cast member on your show each week that utilizes their one major character trait.

An excellent suggestion. And one of the commenters, Randy Johnson, pointed out that most shows don’t have any real character development because when they’re shown in syndication it’s sometimes out of order and they need to stand-alone. I guess it’s the same for series novels.

Except in many novel series these days there are huge events that change everything.

I mentioned in my review of Giles Blunt’s latest book that the wife of the main character dies in book number three. On the weekend I read a review of the fifth book in Louise Penny’s series and found out that one of the characters I really liked in the first three books (the gay owner of the B&B) is the murderer in book four. If you read these series out of order they’ll still be really good books but your impressions of the characters will be different than if you read the books in order.

My one season in a TV writers’ room isn’t much experience but what the hell, I’m going to make some sweeping statements anyway; this episodic vs. serial approach comes up everyday but no one really believes it.

On The Bridge we were told the show had to be episodic, each episode had to be completely close-ended and stand alone.

Then we’d get notes like, “We like the Russian mobster, can you use him again?”

The answer, of course, is yes, we’d love to develop that character some more so we put him in the next script. And then the note would come back that we’ll have to explain who he is, so we can’t really develop the character because every time he shows up we’re starting from scratch.

At the moment I can’t think of a truly episodic show – just degrees of serialization. And it seems the longer a show runs, the more serialized it becomes.

So I wonder, why can’t we just admit that’s the way it’s going and start there?

Does anyone prefer more episodic shows or stand-alone novels?

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Exposition? Like Climbing Everest? That Kind Of Exposition?

By Jay Stringer

It seems like it's advice week here at DSD, so I thought I'd wade in with something that's playing on my mind this week. Not that anybody should listen to my advice. Hell, I was the guy telling Warner Brothers to hire Will Ferrell to make the new Superman film. Instead they went with some dude who made a film about watching men, and some other film about naked men fighting in grease.

So if Warners' don't listen to me, there's no reason that you should.

But I'm here today to talk about one of the greatest villains of our time. A character so vile that he appeared in all three Austin Powers movies. Yes, him. Mr Basil Exposition.

The dude is evil, I'm tellin' ya.

No sooner are you sat at your writing station typing away, feeling good about writing the great American word, then Mr Exposition comes and craps all over the page. Prose that should be singing started to stink. Words that should be clean start to mumble. The chapter starts to sink, and it drags the whole start of the book with it.

In no time, you're left with the smoking wreckage of what used to be a laptop and the cracked plaster of what used to be a wall. You are somewhere in the corner, with your pants over your head, trying to turn your internal monologue into internal dialogue.

So how to fix these problems? No, really, tell me, how? I know a few tricks that work for me, but afterwards I'll be interested to hear what works for you.

These tricks work for me and I tentatively suggest there may be something in here that works for you. I also suggest that I will be stating the obvious, because that's what good writing advice always boils down to; shit that you probably already know, if you cut yourself a break and take the pants off your head.

So let me start with the step I have to take before I can slay exposition.

Embrace Exposition.

If you listen to the right kind of advice, they will suggest to you that putting exposition on a page is akin to putting barbecue sauce on a baby. But writing advice always comes down to one thing. It's always about writing well. Sure, Elmore Leonards '10 Rules Of Writing' are great rules. I stick by them as much as I can. But buried away in those rules is the simple idea; "If you can do something well, then to hell with the rules." Lets look at another rule. Never use voiceover in a movie. Hell, has nobody ever seen Goodfellas??

So first and foremost, if you got it, flaunt it. If you can do chunks exposition on a page like nobody else, then go for it. Exposition is not the enemy. Bad writing is the enemy.

We need it during a first draft. That first pass is not the book that the world will see. Hell, it's probably not even the draft that your agent or editor will see. It's the draft that your brain needs to see. That process of throwing 80,000 words onto a page so that you can then go back and turn them into a novel. The plot is not quite formed, the characters are not yet at their devious best. So if you need to throw leaden exposition onto the page to get from A to B, then have at it, and sing while you work, because you is writing. And exposition is important.

Why is exposition so important? Well, Wikipedia, the all-father, has this to say; "The purpose of exposition is to provide some background and inform the readers about the plot, character, setting, and theme.." So, you know, it's that whole story telling thing. It's really just the knack of telling the reader what they need to know, and learning to leave out everything else. So like writers block, the trick is to embrace exposition. To tackle it head on and figure out how to make it work for you.

Dialogue, Dialogue, Dialogue.

All writers have their own crutches. Mine is dialogue. I can do it. Not always very well, and it's all to easy to fall into the trap of writing something that's snappy for the sake of being snappy. Yes, Tarantino, I'm looking at you. If the audience knows it's good dialogue, then it's not good dialogue. Anyway. Point is, if I'm in a whole I know I can use dialogue to get me out of it.

And its true that a lot of exposition anxiety can be resolved through dialogue. You've got your characters at your disposal, you might as well use them. Look at McFet, or Leonard. Look at the Fletch books, which were a huge influence on me for awhile. Characters explain stuff to each other. They debate and discuss. The author is there in the background, somewhere.

But here lies a trap. You have to hold yourself to realism when it comes to dialogue. Two characters who both know something are very unlikely to bring it up in conversation simply for the sake of it. You need to either find a natural way for the information to seep into the dialogue, or find a different way altogether. I love The West Wing as much as the next bod, but Josh was only there for exposition. It was his job to wander through the script telling Donna (the audience) what was going on. If you're Aaron Sorkin, then you can maybe pull it off. If you're anyone else, find another way.

Here are the two things I'm finding key to my writing process at the moment; Honesty and Movement.

Honesty.

Writers need to be damn hard on themselves. It's tempting to treasure every word that you put onto the page. It's your art. It's your jelly baby. It's your rosebud. It's also potentially your enemy. I walk away every now and then, have a drink or a shower, and then come back to the page on a mission to beat the crap out of what I just wrote. Strip away at it, question every word, make everything that's on the page have to earn its place.

The funny thing is, even once every word has justified it's place, the story can still suck. Because now that the words are right, the order might be wrong.

Movement.

I'm cheating here. I see this as two different things, but I'm too lazy to come up with separate titles. The first element is editing. Moving the pieces of the puzzle around. Even after you've done everything else,the dialogue, editing and honesty, you still need to drop a chunk of exposition into the middle of a chapter. And you worry that the readers will spot it a mile off. They probably will, they're a clever bunch. But I find that if I keep moving all the pieces of the chapter around, eventually I find the right shape, and most of what's left falls into place.

And the second part of movement is my simplest, and my current favourite trick. If in doubt, if ever I'm stuck on a chapter with anything at all, I'll start with a movement. (Oi, Weddle, stop snickering.)

If I have to drop in one of those bits of exposition? I'll earn it first. And it can be simple. A character can walk into a room. He can park his car. He can lie on his bed. Any kind of movement, no matter how small, seems to work some magic trick with the readers brain. It gets the story moving.

And it's not just me. I've taken a look around at some other books.

First a couple from our favourite scary man, Allan Guthrie. The opening of his first book, Two Way Split, goes like this;

"Four months and twenty-two days after he stopped taking his medication, Robin Greaves dragged the chair out from under the desk and sat down opposite the private investigator."

Now, that's not the biggest opening ever. No cars were blown up. But it's an opening with a simple trick to it, and it's one that makes you want to read more. It has some fairly big bits of exposition wrapped up in it; it has medication, it has a time frame, it has two character introductions and it tells you roughly what genre of story we're dealing with. But what is the magic trick, if my theory holds any water here? It's the moving of the chair and the sitting down. A simple act of movement right at the top of a chapter (and the book.) By the time you've read this opening, you know a hell of a lot, and you're buying into a scene of two people talking, which will probably be full of exposition. Job done.

Here's another Guthrie, from Savage Night;

"When he opened his sitting room door, the last thing Fraser Savage expected to see was a corpse."

Now you might cry foul here. You might tell me it's the corpse that draws your attention. And yes, you're right. But what is it that eases you into that steady climb of reading the sentence? I'm sure it's the small, simple movement. Something active at the top of the page that gets our brain into gear. Something as simple as opening a door.

And it can get even simpler than that. Here's the opening line from (what I think could be) the best crime novel of the past five years, Drama City, by Pelecanos;

"Lorenzo Brown opened his eyes. He stared at a cracked plaster ceiling and cleared his head. Lorenzo was not in a cot but in a clean, full-size bed. In an apartment with doors that opened and shut when he wanted them too. A place where he could walk free."

Hey, did you see that? A guy opened his eyes. Nothing to it. But you sure read the rest of that paragraph without feeling it, right? And hidden in there is a ton of exposition. It doesn't tell you about his past, it tells you about his present. But that informs all that you need to know about where he's been. And by the end of that extract, you can feel the freedom in his movement. And that freedom will carry you through the rest of the chapter, laced with this kind of exposition. And once you've read that chapter? Hell, might as well read the book, right?

So those are my tricks. Dialogue, Honesty, and lots of little movements. That's how I get around the exposition trap. And I didn't end up at Drama City by accident. When I first started to think about this part of my writing, I re-read that opening and made it my bible. Just look again at how much Pelecanos tells us in that paragraph, and how easy it seems. I can only imagine the sweat that goes into an opening like that.

So, those are my ticks, and that is my gold standard.

What are yours?

Monday, October 4, 2010

5ive for Writing

By Steve Weddle

Don't listen to Jay Stringer. He says "writers' block" is bunk. (I'm going with plural possessive on that one, as I think if it exists, it exists for more than just me.)

Jay's point was more complicated and nuanced, of course, but I don't have time for that.

As writers, we get stuck. We end up headed down some path running too fast to trip over roots, then the phone rings and we have to stop. Or we get stuck. Or it rains for four days non-stop and floods your basement because the damned vapor wrap behind the siding is goofy and you suddenly have new priorities. Or you took one too many glasses of "writing lubricant" and end up typing in some odd version of Esperanto.

So you're stuck. Blocked. Whatevs.

Debut author Hilary Davidson (THE DAMAGE DONE) said she's been known to get to that spot and write something along the lines of "Chapter Seventeen: Dan gets home to find that Roger has broken in and stolen Francine's locket, which he then tries to sell to Becky." (BONUS: Listen HERE to Hilary being smart and me being a dork -- an mp3 snippet from our upcoming DSD podcast interview thing.)

So there's one way to break the writers's block. And I've heard some others. So let's share. Oh, crap. Number these things to make the reading easier. OK. Hang on.

1. Write a placeholder chapter

Write explanation for placeholder chapter here and then go on to the next idea.

2. Kill someone.

Yeah, I probably should have saved this for the fifth one, because, seriously, where do you go from there? But that's what I've tried to do. If you get stuck, get rid of something. Add some conflict. Honestly, until your novel is finished, it completely sucks. When it's done, maybe it sucks less. But while you're writing it, don't be afraid to mess some stuff up. I mean, I'm not saying I know what the heck I'm doing. I'm just numbering some ideas to make it sound like I have something worth paying attention to. If you're stuck somewhere, toss in a hand grenade. What have you got to lose? If you had something to lose, you wouldn't be stuck.

3.  Never end your writing session at the end of a chapter/paragraph/sentence.

I stole this from somewhere and I'd link you back there, but I forgot who suggested this. The idea was to stop writing in the middle of a sentence. That way when you pick up the next day, you're just moving along in the middle of things and less likely to get stuck. I can't do that. I wouldn't be able to sleep if I didn't wrap things up.

4. Ink on paper

If you get stuck 20,000 words in or 50,000 or wherever, then maybe you need to print out some pages and read. Maybe you find something printed out that you can use. Foreshadowing. A clue you'd dropped and then forgot about. Reading and re-reading not only kills your soul, it also means you miss stuff. It's kinda like having the same person write a story and proof it.  You made the mistake once, so you're likely to gloss over it again. Having another set of eyes helps. Having another way to interface with your writing is pretty good, too.

5. Aw, crackers. I promised you five.

OK. Maybe you can come up with a fifth trick to break writers' block. Maybe I'll think of one later. So help me think of some ways. And while you're doing that, check out the cover that John Hornor Jacobs did for the DSD collection: TERMINAL DAMAGE -- which will be available laster this month. Seriously, you need a cover? Send cash to Mr. Jacobs.

Sunday, October 3, 2010

Anticipation

by: Joelle Charbonneau

I will admit that I am not lurking behind my computer as you read this. This post was written last Monday because on Tuesday I hit the road to celebrate the release of my first published novel, SKATING AOUND THE LAW. If all has gone according to plan, on this Sunday I am now in Green Bay, WI. And if I’m really lucky, I still have enough energy to enjoy the fun.

Everyone keeps asking me if I am exciting about the book being out. The obvious answer is yes. Years of writing followed by hundreds of rejections make this a moment to be celebrated. The one thing I wonder is if the reality of having a book on the shelves will live up to the anticipation that has built over the past 15 months since receiving my contract. So often, the blockbuster movie that I’m excited to see doesn’t live up to the hype. Or the really fabulous vacation that I counted the days for is just okay when I get to my destination.

Surely you’ve had those adventures.

Some people plan weddings or events for years. Over that time they have built up the event so big that it can never come close to meeting expectations. So while I write this, I have a lot of neurotic fears mixed with a great deal of happiness. I hope the book will connect with the readers that pick it up. I hope that I won’t be sitting alone at events twiddling my thumbs. More important, I hope my anticipation hasn’t created an expectation that reality cannot live up to.

What much anticipated events lived up to your expectations? Your first kiss? Your wedding? Your first story being read by a person other than your mother? And if some of these didn’t live up to the hype, why not?

Saturday, October 2, 2010

Anyone watching CBS's "The Defenders"?

by
Scott D. Parker

As my wife will attest, the *new* show I was most looking forward to was CBS's "The Defenders." I'm hard pressed to give definitive reasons why this particular show sparked my interest. Jim Belushi is not a favorite actor of mine. He's okay, in a normal guy sort of way. I've seen the movie "Underdog" numerous times and grew to like him. At the same time, I always considered his recent sitcom, According to Jim, one of the reasons why sitcoms had sunk so low. Jerry O'Connell also is rarely on my radar. Nothing against him, but nothing really in favor of him either. To be honest, when I saw the casting, I was kind of like "Who put those two together?" And "Who greenlit this one?"

I had those thought up until I saw the preview. These guys have chemistry! Someone knew something I didn't. Guess that's why I don't work for a network. Belushi plays Nick Morelli, an attorney in Vegas. He's separated from his wife who looks after their young son (about ten years old I think). His partner, Pete Kaczmarek, is the young stud to Nick's blue collar workman. Pete's into fast cars, great clothes, and hot women, particularly stewardesses and the assistant DA, Meredith.

Even now, I know what you're thinking: yet another lawyer show in Vegas where the underdog defense attorneys fight the good fight against the big, bad DA. Yes, there is some of that. But, in the tradition of Matlock and Perry Mason and Alan Shore and Denny Crane, these guys know how to win. And, unlike those other famous television lawyers, Nick and Pete care about their clients as people, not just a paycheck.

I knew going in that there was going to be some fast talk, lots of references to gambling as metaphor, and general pretty-people-doing-pretty-things vibe. That stuff is in there and it needs to be to stay on the network. Also, I knew that Nick and Pete would be the heart in an otherwise heartless City of Sin. I mean, they are defense attorneys, not bigwig corporate lawyers. What surprised me the most is Belushi. More to the point, it is the brain of Belushi's Nick that has been a happy surprise.

Frankly, I thought Nick would use a lot of fancy courtroom tricks as the main method of winning his cases. There's a great one in the pilot (and previews) where he proves to the audience how a man would have been shot in the back as a defensive maneuver. It was Nick's thought process that was good, giving Belushi the gravitas to prove that he ain't just a jovial guy not to be taken lightly. He can be thoughtful and, most importantly, have that appearance of intelligence be true to the character.

O'Connell's Pete is a slick lawyer, one that would find a home on just about any courtroom drama. If I had to pick another show (that I've watched; never watched Law and Order) where he would fit, it would have been Ally McBeal with Boston Legal a close second. He's young, ambitious, and keen to have a good payout. And he has, so far, been on the receiving end of Nick's instructions. The best way, according to Nick, to determine if a driver could have seen a jogger (that the driver killed) is for Pete to run, in his fancy shoes, along the street while Nick drives behind him. To date, Pete's been the more comic relief character. I expect that to change.

Halfway through the pilot episode, I emailed a friend and suggested that The Defenders might fill the gap left by Boston Legal. In the two episodes aired so far, The Defenders went from "Let me check this new show out" to "I will take no calls during the 9pm hour on Wednesdays."

Here's the link to the CBS website where you can watch the first two episodes now (and probably all the others later on).

Does anyone else watch this show?

Friday, October 1, 2010

Guest Post -Why I Love Serial Killers

By Sarah Pinborough

While Russel sets out to see if it's true what they say about cats in America, we're taking the chance to get a few different voices onto DSD. First up, please welcome Sarah Pinborough. Sarah is the author of six horror novels and her first thriller, A Matter Of Blood, was released earlier this year.

Why I love serial killers.

After writing six horror novels, I've recently crossed the line into writing crime fiction, (A Matter of Blood, Gollancz March 2010), and I've been asked quite a few times what it's like to switch genres. I often say that it's been quite refreshing, but in fact of all the genres, horror and crime feel to me like the most closely related. If they're not quite brother and sister, then they are at least first cousins.

I was reminded quite strongly of this while watching the first part of the TV adaptation 'DCI Banks: Aftermath' of Peter Robinson's work. Without giving any spoilers, the graphic opening scenes involve a machete, blood, death and the discovery of a serial killer's lair replete with bodies. Take away the involvement of a detective (perhaps the only genre separator) and it could have been the opening of a horror film.

If horror and crime are cousins, then the serial killer is their love-child. He fits so perfectly into both genres (I chose to use a serial killer in A Matter of Bood, and had also used one in a horror novel). The serial killer is the embodiment of every boogie man under the bed or monster in the closet for those who are too grown up to believe in such things. I look at films like Seven or The Silence of the Lambs and I can't decide whether they're crime thrillers or horrors. They certainly both create horror in the viewer and it might not be coincidental that they both are centred around the work of serial killers.

The serial killer is the adult's nightmare, in the way ghosts and vampires (the old-school sort anyway) should scare children. So maybe, in a lot of ways, the genre of crime is for grown-ups who like horror. Certainly more women write crime than they do horror and the whole world knows we're the more grown up of the sexes! Also, the women writing crime are writing some quite horrific stuff – I visited a friend of mine yesterday, who told me he'd been reading a Karin Slaughter novel. He paled slightly and said 'she doesn't pull any punches, does she? That is some really graphic shit.'

So if I'm honest, although I've met some really lovely new people through moving to crime, I don't feel like I've moved genres at all. It's more like I've gone to stay with relatives for a while.

-Sarah