The Intimacy of Books

Something I've been thinking about lately is the difference between Theatre and Movies in terms of drama. In theatre, you have to be very expressive, almost to the point of melodrama, because your audience is potentially fifty feet away and straining to hear what you're saying in the first place. With movies, you can be up close and personal, showing every solitary tear sliding down the cheeks of celebrities.

I've been comparing the differences in the way broadway interprets a song in comparison to its movie counterpart, and I must say, it's very interesting to me. Oftentimes I'll like the instrumentation better in the movie version, but I'll like the vocals better in the broadway. I realize it's a rather sweeping statement, but things just seem to be put in much more expressive ways in theatre, because if you aren't over the top, then no one will catch what you're doing. A friend of mine said it this way, you basically have to pretend you're manic-depressive, either at the height of happiness, or in the depths of despair, and be able to switch from one to the other at the drop of a hat (not her exact words, but still).

How might this apply to the medium of books? When I think of theatre, movies, and books, I see them on a scale of intimacy. I see theatre as being the farthest away, movies the next closest, and books as being the most intimate.

Theatre

First off, in theatre you're distanced literally from the audience. Especially if you're in the cheap seats, you're not going to have an easy time catching all the little nuances and exchanges happening on-stage. There's no camera to show you what to look at specifically, and unless they use monologues and/or soliloquies, you don't get any inside glimpses into any one character's head.

Movies

In movies, you're one step closer, because you can see up close and personal how characters react to certain things and the feelings are more easily conveyed. Having said that, actors are put under even more scrutiny when the audience can see everything. In this medium though, it's still hard to get into a character's head without distracting the audience from the story.

Books

In books, you can get right inside the character's head, and indeed, in many cases you never leave. The whole story-world is rooted in one or a few character's perspectives. Rarely do you see objective, unlimited third person POV's anymore (I certainly don't see them). Readers don't really notice when you use interior monologue. It's not distracting at all to hear a character's thoughts on what's going on, and in fact, sometimes it's awkward if we don't get that. What's cool is that in books, authors get to play with so much more than just simply what they thought.


In books, you can write about the feelings of dread welling up like an acid being pumped into someone's stomach. You can talk about a character's whole being going limp as he watches the love of his life walk out on him. Things movies and theatre can't touch. But what does that say about audience expectations?

If in theatre you expect people to go over the top, and for movies to be a bit more down to earth in terms of performance techniques, what does that say about authors? For me, it means that my descriptions have to be bang on. It means that there is very little room for exaggeration and hyperbole when it comes to a character's thoughts and personality. If I'm going for a realistic portrayal of life. I need to know what I'm talking about, and I have to be believable.

When other styles of storytelling go about portraying 'real life' they have a significant advantage in that they can show real life almost instantaneously, and there's often room for exaggeration. They also have visual cues that give the audience instant setting and information on character. Books can do a lot more, for sure, but the question is, are you willing to wait for it? There's such a fine balance between telling what your reader needs to know and telling them what you want to show. The nice thing about novels though, is that you can do it. You can go deep with your protagonist, you can really delve into their psyches, but it takes effort, and it take skill. Something that you have to keep working at all the time.

What style do you prefer? Up close and personal? Or a bit more distant and dramatic? Does it depend on the genre? Share your thoughts!

Raring to go? Or Reluctant to Show?

Some things you need to know how to do before you do it. Like, skydiving. You need to know a little bit about skydiving before you jump out of a plane. 'Figuring it out' probably isn't the greatest idea.

This principle also applies to juggling chainsaws, heart surgery, and wiring a house's electrical system. These things require research, foreknowledge, and practice without having to do the real thing.

Having said that, if all you ever did was research how to skydive, you'd miss out on the whole point of researching... the dive itself!

I think this can also apply to writing. When you write a book, you don't send your first draft of the first seriously written piece of work you ever write. That thing is going to be full of junk 99% of the time. If you don't invest some real time into it, it just isn't going to work.

Getting a book published isn't just something you add to your list of things to do today. It's not for the faint of heart, and it's not for impatient people. I've been noticing this a lot lately.

There's so much practice that goes into this before you do the 'real thing' and go for an agent. I've personally been working seriously on the craft of writing for years. There are thousands of people who have worked much harder and longer than I have who are still unpublished.

I feel like most writers fall into one of two categories. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me like either we are:

A: Raring to go.

or

B: Reluctant to show.

Raring to Go

These are the people who can't wait to get their novel published. They whip out their pens/laptops and write furiously until their nobel prize worthy masterpiece is born. This child, like an infant in a doctor's hands, is handed over to agent after agent in search of someone willing to bring him to adulthood. But no one is willing, 'cause this is one messed up kid.

Often when we're so eager to get something out, we overlook little errors, inconsistencies, or big picture issues. It's our baby after all. Of course it's perfect! What we don't realize is that not everyone sees this child through rose-coloured glasses. We need a healthy dose of reality. We need to wake up and realize that our work may just not be perfect after one draft.

Reluctant to Show

These people have the opposite problem of never taking their writing anywhere but the drawing board. They're convinced it will never be good enough, and that they must do continual edits on it. Before anyone can ever see it, it needs to be perfect. So it stays tucked in a desk drawer, never to be brought out, or sitting in an unmarked folder in the corner of the screen.

We're so afraid of rejection that we'll do anything to put off hearing the truth about our skill level. Yes. You may be average. No, you're probably not the next Tolkein. But you know what? THAT'S OK. No one really wants another author who wrote just like Tolkein. It would get old to have little identical copy cats of famous authors running around. Who would be left to reinvent a genre? Who would be there to make that next B-Level novel to satiate the masses of consumers of normal, run-of-the-mill books?

You may not be as great as you hoped. Oh no. But wouldn't you rather at least know than spend your whole life wondering? Wouldn't that be better?


What we writers need to do is find a happy medium. Somewhere between practicing forever, and never practicing at all. Somewhere between total confidence, and no confidence whatsoever. A place where we are free to make mistakes, but wisely choose to make as few as possible. A place where it's actually possible to get published.

All in all, a place of relative normalcy... whatever that is.


So what are you? Raring to Go? Or Reluctant to Show?

Can you put a price-tag on truth?

How much is the truth worth? What would you sacrifice to have it? What would you give up to share that truth? Would you give up your time? Money? Energy?

What about your job? What about your peace of mind? Would you give up your safety? Or someone else's safety?

How important is it to know the truth?

I guess that really depends on what truth we're talking about doesn't it?

If we're talking about the truth that I currently have ten plane tickets from various flights tacked to my wall, or the truth that as yet unpublished my novel Clone is a little over 75,000 words, you probably don't care too much.

If we're talking about a government conspiracy that's deliberately sabotaging every blonde's education so that they're barred from going to university, you'd probably care quite a bit more. So I suppose these questions are all going to end up being quite relative to each person depending on what truth they have in mind.

But what about just the concept of truth? Not one specific truth, but the idea of it. There are lots of people today who would argue the fact that truth can even exist, they may be reading this post right now. How do you feel about that? Do you want to fight for it? Do you care?

I know I do. It's actually one of the issues I explore in the book I'm seeking to get published. The desire to know the truth, and the desire to share that truth with others for no other reason than to have the truth out there. Simply because it should be. Is that a bad thing? Lots of people in the book think so.

We live in a society where secrets are some of the most valuable things we possess. We guard them with our lives. Hoard them like gems. Our privacy is something so precious to us that we will fight tooth and nail to keep it. I think a lot more people are concerning themselves with making sure the truth will never surface than to see the truth come out. And what has that done for us? Not a whole heck of a lot. It's created an untrusting, closed, distant society where no one really knows anyone else.

In some genres - like mystery - deceit, and veiled truth are the most valuable things of all. The whole point of the book is that you don't know the whole truth. So I guess in some situations we actually take pleasure out of not knowing the truth. After all, who doesn't enjoy a surprise birthday party every once in a while?

Even still, sometimes I really wish that there could be no more secrets. I just wish that the whole truth were always out there 24/7. Things would be a lot simpler. Sincerity would be a real thing again. Survivor would never work.

"Are you in an alliance with Jen?"
"Yep."
"And are you going to vote me out tonight?"
"Yep."
"Well, I'm thoroughly disappointed but not surprised. I'll go pack my stuff."

Oh ya, great suspense. But I digress.

I guess what I'm saying is, I would love for the truth to not just be a moment, or a particular phrase, but a state of being. I think that's what God's will would be for us. to live in complete truth with one another, and in so doing, draw nearer to him. To never keep any hidden sin in our lives, and always confess it openly.

But for so many people that will never happen, because we're fearful. We're scared of what might happen. We like our secrets. We like that no one really knows us because if they did they'd know just how messed up we all are. Does that mean I never have secrets? No. Because I'm not perfect either. I'm just saying it would be a lot easier to be truthful if that was just the norm.

I can only speak for myself, but I know I'd give almost anything to have the truth. The real cold hard truth all the time. Our world would be a much better place if we could just be honest with each other.

I guess the real question is, could we handle the truth all the time?


So what do you think? Truly? How valuable is the truth?

Characters don’t run your story

SO, I realize it’s been forever since I last posted.  Mostly I’d like to say that’s because I’ve been super busy.

Mostly it’s because I’ve been super lazy.

It’s one of the strangest feelings when you say you’ll get back to something once things are normal again, and then you realize your normal is gone. I kept saying once I was back into the swing of things I’d be back into writing, but not going back to school for the first time in my life meant things would not go back to the way they were. That took some getting used to.

ANYWAY.

So over the summer, as those of you who know me will know, (and of course I have a HUGE following of people who don’t know me, so don’t feel left out if you’re part of that group that numbers in the millions, if not dozens of people) I was teaching English at a Quebec summer camp. (I should write another post about how annoying lots of random notes in parentheses can be). I enjoy talking about this camp for a number of reasons. It was a big part of my life for a few months, and I find it easy to pull analogies out of.

This particular analogy is about characters telling the author what to do. Some writers claim that at a certain point, their creations just run amuck, and do whatever they want, and that the author has no control. I will admit that there was a time when I indulged this kind of thinking, but NO MORE. This is really a very nonsensical thought. (And not for the reason all you non-writers out there are thinking). It’s not because your works can’t develop a life of their own, it’s because you as the author should know much better than your creation what’s good for them.

When I was teaching English, there were some things my kids liked to argue about that were just plain wrong.

“BUT SEVEEEEEEEEEN!!! They would wail. “You don’t say ‘I am 12 years old’, it’s ‘I have 12 years old’!!! Everyone knows that!!!” Now, in French, if you were to literally translate what they were saying, they’d be right, because that’s how it’s said in French, but they didn’t fully understand the English version, and so we argued about it. Many of them still don’t believe me. Another day, I was discussing contractions, and when presented with the two options “You’d not”, and “You wouldn’t” 100% of the class voted for the former as the more proper version. Clearly, you don’t let students run the class, and in the same way, you clearly don’t let characters run your story.

So what if Sally wants to jump off the bridge because her stupid werewolf boyfriend dumped her for an X-Men? She’s not gonna kill herself two chapters in! She’s your protagonist! And you know better than she does! You know that in the end she gets to take that werewolf down with a silver bullet to the chest in that awesome Western Showdown you’ve got going on in Chapter 73!

“BUT HER EMOTIONS!!!” You whine.

“SO WHAT?!” I calmly reply. You need to learn to work around her emotions to get her through, otherwise you’ll just end up with garbage in the end. Letting your characters be real is one thing, letting them take over is another thing entirely. Don’t give in to imaginary-peer pressure.

Say ‘No’, to character enabling.

Have you ever heard of authors claiming their characters are running the show? What are your thoughts on this? Is it crazy? Genius? Pitifully psychotic? Let your voice be heard!


*SIDENOTE* - To all my awesome Quebec friends, just so you know, anytime I mention my crazy times with my francophone students I am in no way trying to offend any of you. Just wanna put that out there. I LOVE YOU GUYS!! :P

An update from Quebec

Sorry I didn't post anything last week, I really was going to, but then I was kinda busy with ACTUALLY WRITING MY QUERY LETTERS!! *ahem*. I need to control myself. But seriously! I finally stopped putting it off and just did it which was awesome. I'm waiting for a reply from the agents I sent it to, and am trying to find new ones all the time. Part of me says I should wait and see if any of these agents tell me how I can improve my letter so that I can send a better one to my next batch of agents, and another part of me says the odds of that happening are quite slim so I should just send out what I've got and hope for the best.

While I'm figuring all that out, I thought it might be fun to do a little list of things I like, and things I don't like here in Quebec.


Things I don't like:

1. Being introduced as English (See last post)

2. Humidity. I'm pretty sure this speaks for itself. It's funny how since I got back from Mexico nothing's really seemed hot or humid like it did before, but humidity still sucks. Especially when you're trying to sleep.

3. The fact that I can't stay here for long. This essentially means that as much as I want to make deep connections with friends here, and I want to love all the kids that come to camp, I know that it's going to end all too soon. I've already gone through this a few times, and it's not fun. Have you ever tried explaining to a four-year-old that "No, I probably won't be back next year" and "Well... maybe I'll see you again soon...." It makes you feel awful. I hate doing it. Friends are a little better, but it still sucks to know that the likelihood of seeing them again soon is slim.

4. No piano. No flute. No bassoon. I'm not really sure what I was thinking when I decided "Ummm... the bassoon really is kinda big, and I'd have to pay for extra baggage with it. I'll just leave it in Calgary!" Idiot. I miss playing the piano so much. I don't have any instruments here except my laptop, but c'mon, that's not an instrument that's just a piece of technology that can mimic what an instrument can do. It's just not the same.

5. No public transit. I didn't expect this to be on the list of things I'd miss before leaving Calgary, but I really do miss my alone time. It's not like I don't have any alone time any more, I just have to get it when I can. In Calgary my life was very pleasantly predictable and scheduled. I knew when I'd be alone, when I'd be with friends, when my work was (always the same time), and even where I had my 'wiggle room' spaces. That basically means I had a spot in the schedule for unexpected, or pre-planned unique events that would change from week to week. Here, I kinda just do spur of the moment stuff. "Well, I could  go do that, or maybe I could do that, or..." But this kind of freedom isn't liberating for me. It's immobilizing. Being able to do anything means I do nothing. Weird, I know, but that's kinda just how I work.


Five things I love about being in Quebec

1. I'm finally able to practice my French again. I really do love French as a language, and I love speaking it. It'd be great to be bilingual one day, but I don't imagine that'll happen anytime soon. It's kinda hard to be immersed in a language when you're working at a camp teaching English five days a week.

2. Getting Francophone children to say my name.
"Hi, what's you're name!?"
(child giggles) "insert child name here."
"Oh! Cool, my name's Seth!"
"Set?"

If I'm being nice, I'll say "Yeah, that's good!"
But some days I really just want a good laugh.

"No no, it's SeTH."
"Ooohh. SeTSH." (spit flying everywhere)
"Okay, put your tongue here" (I demonstrate)
(child giggles, then puts tongue where instructed)
"TTTHHH"
"PBTHSHTHPBT" (spit flying again)
"Good! Okay, now SeTTTHHH"
"Se- (a sound that is like a cross between sneezing and drowning... not sure how to represent that with letters.)"
"Perfect!"

Need I say more? This is basically one of the best ways to spend time talking to children I've found. Adults usually just laugh awkwardly and don't try to say it, or say it once, laugh, and then never say it again or stick to Set. They're no fun. :P

3. POUTINE. 'nuff said.

4. The kidlets. I've always loved working with kids, it's really fun, and sometimes rewarding. There have of course been a few kids I would have rather not had to deal with, but there are others who honestly just made me say "Can I adopt you, please? Like, right now?" And then they'd look at me, and say "QUOI??" (What) and then I pick them up and run around with them. It's kinda tiresome to be doing it so week after week, but it's still good. I'd much rather be doing this than mowing lawns or roofing.

5. Chillin' with my sister. I haven't been able to do anything with my older sister for a really long time, so having the summer to just do all kinds of stuff together (mostly watching Heroes and sitting around) is really great.


 So that's my life in Quebec! I hope all my friends and family across the country are doing well. Can't wait to get back to Calgary, but in the meantime, I'll enjoy my time here. It's hard work juggling camp, writing, and down time, but I'll manage. For now, I'll hopefully post again soon, but if I'm not posting, you can basically assume I'm busy doing some other writing duty. Maybe my next entry will be less about my experiences in Quebec and more about writing.... ya, that might be a good idea. :P

This is Seth, he's English!

Hello all! It's another wonderful day in Quebec. Day camp is going well, and I feel like me and my sister are starting to get in the groove of things. We know our rhythm, and it's working for us. Now it's just a matter of choosing what stuff we're going to teach and what activities to do with the kids each week! This post is part "here's how it's going here in Quebec" part "here's how it made me think about writing and stuff."

So here goes. Being relatively new to the area, I meet new people all the time. This doesn't bother me as a general rule, what bothers me is how it comes out most of the time. Usually when I'm introduced to new people here, it goes something like this.

"This is Seth, he's English!"

When this is translated into French, and then back to English, it comes out as

"This is Seth, he's mentally handicapped! So make sure to speak nice and loud, use small words, or refrain from conversing with him at all!"

I know it's not that bad, but it always bugs me when I'm introduced like that. People automatically assume that I can't carry a conversation or something because French isn't my first language. Granted, I'm not fantastic, but if given the chance I can usually hold my own. I know it's probably really obvious based on my accent alone, but saying it as a way of introducing me feels awkward.


Thinking about this lately made me think about how characters are introduced in novels. Usually you want to introduce a character doing something normal. Waking up, going through their work day, starting school, doing something that most people can relate to. Even if it's a book where the character is going to be doing a ton of stuff that you can't relate to (blowing up cars, flying spaceships etc.), it's important to establish a baseline where the reader can feel connected to the character.

In the series that I'm planning, one of the characters that plays a major role in a later book has a fairly significant handicap, and I try to keep it hidden for as long as possible, because in my thinking, the moment you slap a handicap on someone, you distance your reader from them. That guy's in a wheelchair? Oh, he's not like me. He's blind? Well, I don't have a clue what her life must be like.

He's English? Well, I guess he's not really just like any one of us.

Now, understand this. I'm not saying that anyone here has snubbed me, or made fun of me intentionally just because I'm not French. After people have been given some time to get to know me I'm usually fine except for a bit of a language barrier. The problem I run into is instead of the usual distance of "They're new, I don't know them." There's the additional hurdle of "They aren't like me, we can't understand each other." This makes it a lot harder to close the gap and go from acquaintance to friend. It takes that much effort on both ends to really form a connection.

I think the same can be said about characters in a novel. First impressions are super important. If you put up barriers between yourself and the protagonist right at the start saying "I'd never do that. What kind of person is this? I don't understand them!" It'll be a lot harder to care about them later.

Now, I could probably go on, but I'm beat from a long week, and even longer weekend (somehow), so I need SLEEP. Which unfortunately and inexplicably escaped me this afternoon when I tried to nap. Therefore, goodnight all, and have a great week!

Right now, I want to know, what do you think of first impressions? Have you ever had a first impression that turned out to be the exact opposite of what you thought? Post a comment about it!

But that's not really where the story starts...

So, I recently watched a movie that finally illustrated to me why piling on the back story is a bad idea. Now, I'm not naming any names, but this John Carter guy has a lot to learn when it comes to opening sequences.

So it all began with - but wait, first you have to know about this other thing where I did this... no, it's still not back far enough. Where it REALLY starts is -

And so on.

Eventually, I'm pretty sure it got to backstory within backstory within backstory within backstory. This guy's on mars, and then you go back to 18th century New York (Don't quote me on the date), which goes back to The wild west somewhere, which goes back to mars at an earlier time, which goes back to his old life with his wife.

I was starting to wonder if the story would ever start! Thankfully, it did get better, and the end result was a movie that I more or less enjoyed. Having said that, I personally think it could have done with a bit less backtracking.

When you get into writing in a serious way, and actually start doing real research in it all, one of the things any experienced writer or agent will say is don't use a lot of backstory at the beginning of your novel. Give your readers a chance to actually care about your characters before you tell us all about what happened before the story started. Because at the end of the day, backstory stops your story. Dead in its tracks. When used properly, it can be really effective in giving the reader a better understanding of your characters, and can even help clarify the plot, or motivations.

The problem I had with the first half-hour or so of this movie was that it didn't really start for me until they finally decided to stop jumping back in time. Once they did that, they kept moving forward at a proper pace, but before that happened I was just left continually wondering when it would go back to the start. This kept me from actually engaging in the movie. Once the narrative found a consistent pace, it was fine.

This has just solidified in my mind the importance of starting at the right place when telling a story. You need a place that catches your attention, and makes you want to read more. You need a place that you could call to some extent the beginning. I've heard it said like this. Your first chapter is a contract with the reader. The rest of the book is going to be like this. If you stuff that chapter with backstory, you're just misleading your reader into thinking that it's something it's not. You can't make the first three chapters of your book filled with car chases, beautiful women and war and then reveal that actually this is a story about what this guy's life is like in his retirement home he went to 50 years after all of that. I didn't buy this book to hear about Bingo and Pea Soup.

I guess what I'm saying with all of this is that like I've said before, consistency is key. You need consistency in tone, and pace. Backstory completely throws off the pace of the book/story, and if you start out with a lot of it, you run the risk of throwing off your readers and making them feel duped. Or worse, just plain bored.

Now I know what you want to ask me. Do I use backstory in my book? Yes. But, I don't use it often, and I definitely don't use it right away. That's one thing I've tried to implement from what I've read from the 'experts'. I think it can be great when used sparingly. Like cinnamon. Too much, and it just leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

When, if ever, has backstory put you off a book or movie?

PS. HAPPY CANADA DAY!!!!!