Stay Updated: Posts | Comments

Posts made in February, 2012

  • Before TOOTH AND NAIL, my published work was in the romance genre, and the romance was the story. The romance drove the conflict; the romance ramped up the motivation. Perhaps the hero or heroine were trying to solve a crime, or trying to save a farm, or trying to put each other out of business, but the outer plot was secondary to the question: will they end up together at the end?

    Of course.

    But aside from the romance genre, you’d be hard pressed to find a mainstream book or movie that doesn’t have woven through it some element of romance. Once romance is introduced, it brings the reader or viewer closer to the story. There is now a deep, meaningful way to connect to the characters. Romance is the great storyline equalizer.

    Your reader may not be a nunchuks expert; your reader may not be the president of a galaxy; your reader may not be a succubus. (Or maybe the reader is. Probably not.) But…your reader has very likely been in love.

    For love, a character will transform into his best self. For love, a character will break the law, or do things she never thought she could. Love will change the story, and change the characters, for better or worse.

    – Jennifer Safrey

    Read More...
  • “Sex and feelings…the elements of Romance.” I’ve decided this must mean the depiction of a full relationship: not just opportunistic, up-against-the-wall sex, but a relationship involving sex and love which reaches across divides. The divides could be physical, biological, cultural, religious, or political. And, SFF being what it is, those divides will be more numerous and varied than in other genres.

    Romance, as defined, has blossomed in the recent vampire-centred novels and TV series and movies. I don’t know them well enough to give any detailed view, but their theme – the vampires’ isolation and alienness, their love for people who they’ll see grow old and die – was explored before in the movieThe Hunger (with Catherine Deneuve and David Bowie) and in the novel and movie Interview With the Vampire. Also in the Gary Oldman movie Dracula, which had the byline Love Never Dies. They explored it very movingly. I’ve always thought The Hunger was very underrated.

    I know vampires aren’t strictly SFF, which is what this topic asks about, but they are close relatives of the genre. I’m reluctant to dig up (perhaps an appropriate phrase) the old arguments about genre, but what fascinates me is their genuine intention to focus on Romance as interpreted above. In fact, it’s arguably their main focus.

    (more…)

    Read More...
  • http://durendal5150.deviantart.com/journal/Enormity-283175896

    Read More...
  • Most fantasy authors choose a low-tech setting for their alternate worlds. Without going into the reasons for that, which are themselves fascinating and sometimes illogical, I will go straight to the result: by choosing low-tech we catapult ourselves backwards into history, often choosing to build a society that is less progressive than our own.

    This ensures your mages reign supreme over swords and arrows (although some medieval weapons were badass, if you ask me) – but that’s not the only reason to do it. The more road blocks you can put in front of a character, the better. Readers tend to identify with the underdog, the person who is struggling against great injustices,  and therefore what’s better than putting him in a society where things are unequal?

    But then we get to the women. Romance gets complicated when you have a historically-adjacent setup of empowered males and disempowered females. In the United States, where this blog resides, women constitute 51% of the population but make up only 17% of congress, and they continue to struggle for control of their own reproduction. We moderns have not succeeded in working out our own issues, so portraying them is tricky. What’s worse is that romance in itself – its tradition of broody men and devoted women – is a ‘how not to’ guide for our daughters. (more…)

    Read More...
  • John Love – Wired.com’s Geek Dad Blog reviews Faith! The Little Red Reviewer interviews John Love. The Denver post reviewed Faith.

    Nathan Long – Cleveland.com reviews Jane Carver of Waar.

    J.M. McDermott – Read a review of We Were Executioners at Examiner.com.

    W.G. Marshall – chats Enormity with Walter Greatshell at Forces of Geek.

    Will McIntosh – SF Signal reviewed Hitchers today!

    Read More...
  • Like a lot writers, I keep a file of story ideas.  Actually, I keep two–one for SF and fantasy ideas, and one for interesting nonspeculative storylines/scenarios that might serve as the scaffolding for a SF or fantasy idea.  Even if I write until I’m 100, I won’t have time to turn them all into stories or novels.  Each time I start something new, I have to make choices, and one of the choice points is, do I write what I want to write most, or do I write what I think is likely to be popular?  It’s never quite that straightforward, and often if you’re excited about an idea, readers are likely to respond enthusiastically as well.  But, feet to the fire, if I have to lean one way or the other?  Easy.  I write what I think is likely to be popular.

    There are unflattering words we sometimes ascribe to writers who make the choice to write based on what they think will sell, but let me elaborate on my thinking.

    Over the years I’ve often heard or read this piece of advice: write what you love.  The thing is, some of the things I love most are things most readers wouldn’t find all that interesting.  For example, I am fascinated by collecting, and would love to write something that centers around collecting.  I’m an avid collector.  Original comic art is first and foremost, as might be evident by my new novel Hitchers, but at one time or another I’ve collected autographs, baseball cards, movie posters, first edition SF books and more.  Over time I’ve learned that unless you’re talking to another collector, never, ever talk about collecting.  Only other collectors find collecting interesting; everyone else’s eyes glaze over in a hurry if you bring up collecting.  Now, I’m sure it’s possible to write a stunning novel that centers around collecting (there may even be some are out there), but it would be an uphill battle.

    (more…)

    Read More...
  • The title for this piece comes from one of my favorite movies, YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN. It’s in the scene where the junior Dr. Frankenstein (played by the great Gene Wilder) discovers his infamous grandfather’s secret book, which holds the key to reanimating the dead. The title of that ominously dusty tome is so literal it’s funny:  HOW I DID IT.

    If only it were that easy.

    One thing I’ve learned from writing novels is that such a how-to manual is impossible. For fiction to be truly worthwhile, it must be the product of long reflection, painful experimentation, a lifetime of experience distilled into the best story anybody ever wrote – or so the author should believe.

    There is no shortcut.

    As a reader, I don’t want the literary equivalent of junk food; I want soul food. I want to know I’m reading the agony and the ecstasy of a true believer, whose purpose in life was to write that novel.

    This applies whether a book is comedy or tragedy – it just has to be a labor of love and hard-earned skills. No matter the genre, every novel should stand alone, a monument to the author’s tortured psyche. If a book exists merely to fit a popular publishing niche, and its author has no ambition beyond repeating the generic tropes, it doesn’t deserve to be called a “novel.” Novel means original.

    Maybe I’m crazy.

    (more…)

    Read More...
  • How do I decide what I are going to write?

    It depends.

    Left on my own recognizance, I make very little calculation about it. I have never been one of those writers who thinks about what is currently popular when planning his next book. I’m not a bandwagon jumper. Inspiration strikes, I jot down the idea, and after a while, if I can find the time and a good hook, I might expand it into a book.

    Jane Carver of Waar, for example, was, despite what you might think, all inspiration and no calculation. I didn’t write it because the John Carter movie was coming out. I wrote it ten years ago when there wasn’t even a whiff of Barsoom in the air, just because I liked the idea. It might have sold because the John Carter movie is coming out, but that’s a different story, and not mine to tell. (more…)

    Read More...
  • Once upon a time a creative writing teacher told me that all stories had to have outlines. As a result, I thought I couldn’t be a writer because I have a very difficult time working with outlines. My brain simply doesn’t work that way. Years and years passed before I discovered that writers work in all sorts of different ways, and they’re all valid. (If someone tells you there’s only one way to write — run, don’t walk to the exit.) Also? I’ve written six novels so far, and every novel is a bit different from the last one. (Some are more different than others.) You’re working with your subconscious, and your subconscious sometimes can get a bit tricksy with you because… well… everyone has their insecurities. (Get used to it. You’ll be facing them every time you look at a blank page or computer screen.)

    That said, I’m an organic writer for the most part. I get a scene in my head and then I follow the characters around until things start to jell. That’s what it feels like. I’m spying on my characters and jotting down the things they say. Sometimes I get ideas ahead of time for how things should work, and I write those down. Once it’s down on paper or in the computer, I can safely think about other things. Often, my husband and I go on long walks around the neighborhood and talk about the story. He’s not only my alpha reader, but my idea wall — I bounce ideas off him. (I can tell you the neighbors have given us an odd look or three. Oh, the conversations we’ve had in public.) The thing to remember is that writing is in the re-writing. Type whatever comes to mind. Polish it later. It’s okay to suck. Just write. Eventually, I end up with enough to stop and plan. (Usually, this is the famous “middle muddle.”) Where is the story headed? Where does it need to go? What do the characters want? What best serves the story? That’s when the planning comes in. I need to know what the ending is before I get there. That said, sometimes the characters throw me for a loop and that’s the fun part. I know I’m in a good place when that happens.

    Books are different than short stories, by the way. I have to know everything about a short story before I start writing, and I guess that’s why I don’t write them often, but they’re great practice. They make you focus on the ending. Most beginners focus on writing beginnings over and over and hardly ever write endings. That’s why endings — good endings are hard.

    Read More...
  • Author Walter Greatshell (MAD SKILLS, XOMBIES)  chats with ENORMITY author W.G. Marshall for FORCES OF GEEK – and a rollicking good time is had by all! Check it out:

    http://www.forcesofgeek.com/2012/02/author-wg-marshall-chats-enormity-with.html

    Read More...