Who owns what? Is there an exclusive territory for certain special writers?

This post was spurred by http://www.sfwa.org/2010/03/can-you-define-african-science-fiction/ and some comments from a rather angry young person a while back about someone writing from their little chosen identity's point of view (Pick your own, my dears. Could be homophobic Russian-speaking pentathalon athletes, or gay Chinese Quakers or whatever narrow little niche they catagorised themselves as). How DARE XYZ Author (who isn't in that particular niche) write about the niche! The barefaced revolting gall! XYZ-fail! Boycott their books! XYZ could never understand it.

Sigh. Back where I came from they had this 'charming' policy called 'apartheid' which this resembles. Yes, it is something the world holds in abhorence and rightly so, but in practice this is still the same thing. Let me explain: In political theory the apartheid policy was called 'seperate development' and purported to effectively divide the human race and allow the different cultures to develop and control their own affairs (we even had a Ministry of Own Affairs). In actual unpleasant practice this meant restricting part of the population from using the resources (jobs, land, votes) which were exclusively for the other part. Of course the 'special'part was not equally restricted. THEY could use anything. And what's more they could decide what was 'suitable' for the rest.

This is Dave's personal take on this. I give you my fullest permission to write about my niche, even if you have never been hetrosexual, addicted to adrenalin, excess-testoseronally challenged, or had to suffer from sunburn, and have not lived in Africa. Even if (as most writers who don't fit the above profile mostly do) you make something of a horse's butt out of it. Because unless you're going to write only about people in your niche, for your niche, odds are you will write about someone else. Probably as the villian (whose culture, background, motivation and feelings you don't understand - just as he doesn't understand yours). Don't expect, however, that I will grant you apartheid rights over me and my very broad niche. I've been a second class citizen, and am not ready to be one again, or to make anyone else be one. I am going to write female characters. I am going to write ones from cultures that are not my own. I'll try and do so sensitively, and with as much careful research as possible, because that is what the ethical author does. I will probably still make a horse's butt out of it sometimes. But the truth is, even if the character is a Mongol and lives in Eastern Romania in the 16th century, they were still human and I have still felt many of the emotions that motivate all humans. Unless you are prepared to back off from using my language or my culture or my gender or my orientation don't tell me to keep off yours. And if you feel your background in that niche qualifies you far better than me to write about it -- you're probably right. Please do it. But you don't own it anymore than Fred Nurk owns writing in English about fat middle-aged white guys because he is one. We'll leave it readers to see whose WRITING they prefer - because being a homophobic Russian-speaking pentathalon athlete may make you know all about being a homophobic Russian-speaking pentathalon athlete... but actually, no, it doesn't make you a good writer automatically. If you want your point of view carried effectively, you might be best advised to find the best writer possible to do so.

For the record, I do not think I write African Science Fiction (although I think I am the most prolific and widely read African born sf writer - with some 30 000 years on my mother's side of claim to that part of Africa, you might say I had some claim if I believed in this sort of territoriality). Nor do I want to. I write Science Fiction. I am still very fond of my birth-land, but it does not confine me. I will compete with anyone, anywhere. I'll lose sometimes, because there are some great writers out there - but I would rather be a lesser fish in big ocean with room to grow and peers to learn from, than need to claim some puddle all for my own. It would be nice to be considered on the merits and failings of my writing. That's unlikely, but I don't want to claim some sort of special status and territory of my own, whatever happens.

So: do you think there is any justification for exclusively restricting any area of writing to one group? Or does any group claiming this forfeit the right to use the resources of others? Can a man write about childbirth? And is a woman who has never had a baby excluded? Can a woman write about having many times the level of testosterone she's ever experienced (yes, actually men are hormonal, and yes it affects their rationality and behaviour)? Can a non-Inuit write about Inuit seal hunting (and can an Inuit who has not hunted seals write it better than a non-Inuit who has)?

Difficult questions.

Expectations, Misconceptions and Sheer Foolishness

As readers, we have certain expectations when we buy a book. These expectations influence whether or not we make a purchase. When those expectations are met, we put that author or series on our to buy list. When they aren't met -- especially if they fail spectacularly -- we stop buying books by that author or in that particular series. Those expectations have been fairly static over the years but, of late, a new set of expectations have emerged and with them have come some misconceptions about the publishing industry and who is responsible for what.

I'm going to admit right now that this blog entry is written in defense of some authors I happen to enjoy and respect. Authors who are being slammed in reader reviews and online fora for things they have little or no control over. But I'll get to that shortly.

Expectation 1: The book we find on the shelves or order online will be properly edited and proofed before ever reaching our hot little hands. Unfortunately, over the last decade or so, that hasn't always been the case. There are a number of factors that all play a part in this. The first is that too many of us simply rely on spell-check and grammar-check to make sure everything is correct. Another factor is that publishers have, in an attempt to cut their costs, let go a number of their copy editors and proofreaders. If you search the blogs of late, you'll see a number of entries about how agents are now playing the role of proofreader and copy editor. Moreover, it's a role most of them don't want because it takes away from the time they have to do their traditional duty -- promoting the authors in their stable.

The companion misconception that goes along with this is that e-book retailers such as Amazon, Barnes & Noble, etc., have editorial and proofreading control over e-books they sell. Nope. They don't. They simply put up the electronic file they have been provided with. If you are an author putting your own work up through the Kindle store, once you upload the files, there is a way to check it before it goes live for download. I'm sure the same ability exists for publishers. Just as it is unreasonable to expect the mom and pop corner bookstore to be responsible for proofing every book that hits their shelves, it is unreasonable to expect online retailers to do the same thing.

Expectation 2: If an author starts a series, that series will be completed. The unfortunate truth is that a series will be completed only if each book sells well enough. If those books don't sell well enough to justify the continued investment by the publisher, there is a very good chance subsequent books will not be released.

Misconception 1: Authors make lots of money so they should be writing our favorite books more quickly than they do. There shouldn't be years between books in a series. The vast majority of authors don't make enough from writing to live on. Real life happens and interferes with the writing process. And, most importantly, publishing isn't a lightning fast industry -- not even if you are publishing electronically only. At least not if you want to have any quality control of your product. So, readers clamoring for more books from that favorite author, sit back, chill a bit and read another book. Better yet, send a letter or email to that favorite author's publisher telling them how much you like books by Author X and hope to see more soon.

Misconception 2: The agency model of pricing e-books will only affect Amazon. WRONG. Each e-book retailer will find, sooner rather than later imo, that they are going to be forced to either agree to the model or not carry that publisher's books. And, just to remind you, under the agency model, the publisher will set the price of the e-book and the retailer will have little control over changing that price. In other words, no sales without publisher approval. No competitive pricing. No shopping around for the best buy.

If this doesn't worry you, it should. I can see the publishers also trying to enforce this model on hard copy retailers later, as their contracts come up for renewal. If that comes to pass, gone will be the discounts at your local Wal*Mart or Target. Gone will be the discounts if you are a card holder for a certain bookstore or other. We will be back to purchasing books at cover price -- and how many of us actually do that for most books we buy these days? More importantly, how many of us will continue to buy as many books if the prices are set to cover prices?

And now for the real reason for this post. The sheer foolishness that is happening now. Readers, listen closely, when buying a book and gnashing your teeth at the price, don't blame the author. He isn't the one who set the price. This is true be it hard cover, paperback or electronic version. That is left up to the publisher. Let the publisher know how you feel by writing to them and by refusing to buy a book that is priced unreasonably. Do not, I repeat, do not give an author a 1-star review based solely on the price of the book.

That's right. There are people out there right now who are downgrading books they haven't read simply because of the price. Folks, listen carefully. This hurts the author. When people go to sites like Amazon or Barnes & Noble, Powells or Borders, they see the reviews. They don't have to read them. The "stars" are listed right there. And if the book has 47 starred reviews and of those 47, a large number of them are 1-star reviews, that will keep people from buying. And that is money out of the author's pocket. If you have to, note in the text of your review that the price is unreasonable. But don't give a book a bad review just because of the price.

So, what are your expectations when buying a book? What do you do when those expectations aren't met? How about misconceptions you see about the industry? Do you see any misconceptions the industry might have about the buying public?

Here You Shall Not Go

Since Dave and Kate and Chris have all been talking about characters and creating good characters, I thought I’d talk about one characteristic of characters that – perhaps because of the way I write – baffles even me.

Good characters, like good real people, have doors in their head that say “here you shall not go.” Kind of like real people – or at least sane real people.

Heinlein had some fun with those doors in Stranger, because of course, his character raised by Martians doesn’t have the same closed doors in his head that humans have. So, “You shall not eat your friends” is not a “naturally” closed door to him. Meanwhile he has other closed doors that humans normally don’t have. Like “don’t waste water.”

Call it the superego, if you wish to go all Freudian but real people and real characters have definite barriers. And despite a certain school of thought in the sixties and seventies, those arent’ doors that need to be broken down. Rather they’re the doors that make us admire the person or the character.

By this I don’t mean the “doors” that are tested. Characters might have personal issues that keep them from doing this or that, issues that are detrimental to the character’s development or which stop him/her obtaining the character’s heart’s desire. This is what we call “character development” in the story. But this is not the same as the closed door that shall never be opened, or not unless you want to risk “breaking” the character.

Take Anita Blake, in the first few Laurell Hamilton’s. Part of what made her interesting to me was that she didn’t sleep with... well, anyone. She felt the attraction, she was a sensual person, but she had closed that door. Once she opened it, though the series in a way exploded in popularity, the character was broken to me. It’s not that I’m prudish, and I could have found a character interesting who was promiscuous from the beginning. It’s that the character to me, as I read her, necessitated a measure of self discipline. And that vanished.

It would be sort of like my writing a sequel to Darkship Thieves in which Athena is whiney, needy and is terrified of lifting her hand to defend herself. Because one of Thena’s closed doors is the “You shall not be a burden to others” and that includes in self defense. It’s not that she doesn’t feel weak or vulnerable or tired. It’s that the idea of not defending herself, or waiting to be rescued can only occur to her to be dismissed.

It’s a fine balance because to an extent, of course, fiction is supposed to test the character’s limit. On the other hand, you can test it to destruction.

So, how can one do it? How to balance it? And note that I’m asking in earnest, because I have no idea. I can point to other people’s writing and say “Here, she lost it” or “here the character broke.” I think in movie terms we’d say that’s when the character jumped the shark. However, in my own writing, and while I’m working, it’s all clear as coal, and I’m not sure how to test and evaluate whether I broke the character or not. Does any one of you have an idea of how to “see” this?

Elements of Characterization

Every writer knows that it's important to have a well fleshed out character, but how do you go about creating one?

You might start with a single idea for a scene with that character, maybe a general impression of what the character is like, but to carry through a novel, you need a real depth, a real sense of connection to that character. It needs to be established to the extent that when you throw a couple of your characters into a room together, they start talking, loving – or fighting – straight away, and the dialogue has a sense of reality.

Sometimes that sense of connection is easy to establish. It is certainly easier for some characters rather than others. There is always the Gatecrasher as well – a likely sign that things aren’t working. If your host of characters persists in being ‘flat’ your subconscious will rebel by spontaneously creating a character that highjack’s the action. Now some people – particularly pansters – let this Gatecrasher in and watch how the story changes. I’ve tried that, and a few disasters later I have decided that the Gatecrashers (except in very rare circumstances) have to be ruthlessly culled. Then you have to go back to your characters and see what the heck isn’t working. Now I’m not talking about the plot development stage – at that point you WANT new characters to spontaneously generate – I am talking about when you are trying to get these onto the page.

Kate had some good ideas yesterday about social setting and how this might influence character. When I am struggling to connect with a character I often go through a fairly structured process to flesh them out, where I will look at a number of different categories, like:

• Background – where did they come from? Where did they grow up?
• Early life – what sort of things formed them?
• What do they do? – It's amazing how often you forget this. Before the amazing events of your story, what did they do on a day-to-day basis? This will define where they were at the outset, what responsibilities they may be leaving behind, even their relationships.
• Love – have they been in love? Can they love?
• Love in the book – is there a romance?
• Friendship – who are the people in their life? Who defines them?
• Desires – what drives them. What are they searching for on conscious and unconscious levels.
• Fears – what are they scared of (and not just not getting the their desires) – what phobias do them have – very useful for building tension
• Journey – what are they going to learn on their quest. Will they fail?

By the time I have worked through this, even the most stubborn character will start to come to life – or will have morphed into something I can work with.

So what tricks do you use to get your characters to flow? Or is your challenge reining them in?

Getting Under the Skin

For once, the Kate feeelthy mind (tm) isn't involved in this topic... Well, mostly. I can't make guarantees.

Sarah talked yesterday about character and plotting that fails to deliver what it promises. In my not at all humble opinion, part of that failure is the inability of the author to get inside the head of the character. If you don't understand this person, sooner or later you'll write them doing something that's completely wrong for them because it makes perfect sense to you. This is why the best authors have a kind of self-induced multiple personality order (it can't be a disorder, it's more or less under control).

Sure, there are times and and places where it isn't necessary to be that close to your characters. I've yet to encounter one where your fiction isn't improved by that level of understanding. Even extremely formulaic fiction comes alive when the author knows and lives the characters.

Yes, lives. It's a weird state for me, where I'm aware of the real-world considerations around me, but my mind is in a different universe. Oh. Right. That's normal for me. It's when my mind is being a different person in a different universe that gets weirder than Kate-normal. I describe it as channeling that character, because the effect is precisely that. When it's working well, I'm simply the medium by which the character's actions, thoughts and feelings find their way onto the screen.

I know, intellectually, that it's a kind of self-hypnosis where I get myself into the right state and let my subconscious do the heavy lifting. It knows more than I do. My descriptions reflect the way I perceive what's happening.

So, after that lengthy introduction, how does one actually channel a character?

We all have tricks we use to get in the zone. 'Soundtracks' for a book, images that work for us, routines we use to settle our minds so we can focus. Getting inside a character's mind is, for me, a step or two deeper. If I'm working with a historical era - or a setting that closely parallels one - I read as much as I can about it, particularly things like the lives of people in the area and social class I'm looking at, the importance of religion, typical upbringing, and so forth. What I'm looking for here is the environment my character was raised in, because that shapes innate tendencies and governs acceptable actions. Quite simply, no matter who you are or how you were raised, some thoughts are literally unthinkable because the mental scaffolding they need simply doesn't exist. What those thoughts are depends entirely on the culture and language: culture by shaping what is considered 'good' and 'bad' (there are some human universals. There's also a lot of wiggle room), and language by building the scaffolding to frame thought. To take a really simplistic example, a couple of hundred years back, the Inuit probably had no way to think of a hot, arid environment. Neither their cultural experience nor their environment provided any kind of framework. On the other hand, they had any number of ways to think about cold and snow - leading to the old "twenty words for snow" meme. I'd be surprised if they had any cultural reference point for 'introvert' or 'loner', simply because an environment that harsh isn't survivable solo.

So... in a hypothetical historical, even an introverted loner Inuit character is going to be much more people-oriented than a modern introverted loner. He/she will also live within his/her tribe's views of the roles of men and women because moving outside that framework is literally unthinkable. As you learn more about the culture, you'll learn more about the beliefs that affect how your character views the world - how the arrival of a particular kind of wind signals that it's time to move south, the many layers of meaning surrounding every aspect of the tribe's world, the skills that are valued and those that aren't (it doesn't matter if you're the world's greatest mathematical genius when your people don't need to count past 'many' and you've got no access to anything else). Ultimately, the more you know about the world your character lives in, the more you know about how your character has been conditioned to respond to life.

That's when you, as the kind and caring author you are, turn your character's life inside out and upside down to start the story (okay, usually there'll be some kind of introductory stuff first, where your character is living his, her, or in some cases its normal life). At first, your character's going to respond to the new stuff by working with the closest match to 'normal', then there'll be a gradual change and growth. This is the easy part.

The difficult part is doing the same process when you're dealing with the villain. You can always tell someone who can't manage this - their villains are shadowy, offstage menaces that fall flat the instant you see them clearly. It's something of a given that it's a whole lot harder to write convincing evil as opposed to 'decent person who happens to be on the opposite side' or even 'misguided but well-intentioned' - the reason is pretty simple. Most of us can't imagine someone with absolutely no redeeming features at all. If you can't imagine it, you can't get inside and look through its eyes, and you sure as heck can't write it convincingly.

The same process applies, but if you can get inside an evil person's mind, it's... disturbing. One character I've written, after spending time in his point of view I wanted to scrub inside and out. Fortunately I haven't needed to write anyone like that in a while - but I can pretty much guarantee I will have to write evil again. The places my stories go pretty much guarantees it. I'm still not sure whether I was more disturbed because I could write him, or because he was one of the very few who actually is evil, knows it, and chooses to be that way.

More on that topic next week, unless I get derailed (this is quite likely). For this week, lets have some examples of books where the plot can't be separated from the characters and their environment. My pick (yes, I'm cheating and going for several in one) is the Ankh-Morpork Night Watch books by PTerry. It's impossible to separate what happens from Vimes and Carrot, and it's impossible to separate Vimes from Ankh-Morpork. He even manages to take the city with him (in a metaphorical sense) in The Fifth Elephant.

Who and what are your choices?

To the PAIN

Blame this one on Doc Rob. He asked me what errors irritated me the most when I read a book. What did I wish the author had done differently.

Of course, what I wish writers would do differently depends on the writer. The one that fails to let me into the story at all is bad word usage. There are people whose sense of word drives me insane. Sometimes I know why – for instance, a sing-song cadence or words that are too convoluted – sometimes I have no idea.

However, past that, most of the problems I have are with the handling of character. Yes, even the plot problems. Because characters are always at the center of my plot.

This ties in somewhat with Dave’s post on Monday. People might not want my catharsis or my pain, but they do, in a way, provided I disguise it, change it and make it relevant. And for that I need a character.

Other writers do this differently and write different types of characters. They write strong characters, accomplished characters. It doesn’t bother me when they write their characters. No, what makes me throw the book against the wall is when they write MY type of character. And do it wrong.

So, what is a Sarah type character, you ask? What do Thena and Tom and Kyrie and Rafiel and Peter from Soul of Fire have in common?

When I’m casting about for a character to carry a story I look for one thing: pain. Pain and an impossible dilemma. Tom, kicked out of the house too early, and having learned all the wrong things AND incapable of controlling the dragon. Thena, not even raised to be human and faced not only with saving her life, but adapting to a whole other world, all the while falling in love with someone who is not... easy to love.

I go where the pain is greatest, the drive pitted most unavailingly against the obstacle, and I write there. And when the character achieves catharsis, hopefully so does the reader – if not something they can translate to their own lives, at least something they can “feel” vicariously.

Some psychologists believe humans grow when they come to a dead end. They can’t progress along the path they’ve been going and they must change. (Which is why people who get everything handed to them never grow up.) I know – having experienced it – this process can happen vicariously when you get so wrapped up in the character’s growth that you live it too, a little.

Now, I’m not saying it needs to be all angst. My books tend to be a little angsty. Maybe it’s who I am. But for instance, Georgette Heyer manages this wonderfully without much angst at all. Take Sylvester, where the shy girl has learned to cope with life by retreating into her imagination. When her imagination gets into trouble and hurts the man she’s come to love (because she wrote a book in which she tuckerized him, if you haven’t read it) she has to accept her responsibility and deal with the real life consequences of her escapism. There is pain and growth in that, even though it’s all done with a light and humorous touch.

On the other hand, there’s a book I threw against the wall so hard, it stuck there. Not going to name the writer. Let’s just say she’s a bestseller. It starts out with one of the MOST fascinating characters I’ve ever read. Someone I couldn’t come up with – or haven’t, though I’m thinking of stealing him! – in a million years. This character is... let’s say... the ghost of a bad, bad man who was responsible for the death of hundreds of people. The thing is, by the time you find this out, you’ve already become attached to the character who is, in this persona, a young man, before he killed anyone, and doesn’t know what he grew up to do.

He is tormented and suffering and doesn’t know why. And as the other main character, who is falling in love with him, finds out, she is repulsed by who he really is.

There is great tension here, a great potential for catharsis and growth. So, what does the writer do? She has the ghost take over the body of a recently dead young man, about the same age. The memories and personality merge and NOTHING is resolved. On top of that, the dead young man wasn’t introduced before, died by accident, and has nothing to resolve. And his memories are foremost. So basically, she bait-and switched the character with the problem for one without.

This is the sort of thing that makes me throw the book against the wall. I bet you the author thought she was doing something “unexpected”. Yes, she was. It’s normally unexpected to cheat the reader out of the promised catharsis and redemption. It’s also bad. It lets all the air out of tires of tension and need for resolution that you’ve been building up.

It takes a “third, easy” and never before glimpsed path between the crushing cliffs of drive and obstacle.

It makes me want to say, with Juliet, “Dost thou leave me thus, unsatisfied?”

So, what things make you leave a book unsatisfied? How do books miss the mark for you? Now you think about it do they do it by taking the easy way out, via either character-interruptus or deux-ex-author? By inference, in which way do books find the mark for you? And which ones fulfill promises you didn’t even know they were making?

PS - Oh, yeah, I forgot to announce this. John and I are changing days for reasons of convenience, so from now on you get me on Saturdays and John on Wednesdays. Only, this week you get two of me. Aren't you lucky?

Critique Groups

Wow, it's different doing the blog during the week instead of on Sunday! No one has their week of blog posts up for me to review and link to. The week-in-round-up posts aren't there. No one's screaming more than usual about the e-book v. hard copy version price war. What to do, what to do? Well, actually they are, but I'll touch on that Sunday.

So, with your indulgence, I'd like to venture once again into the always explosive topic of writers groups. More specifically, critique groups and the good and bad that can come from them.

Right now, I'll admit I've written, deleted and rewritten this post at least three times. Part of the reason is I'm still trying to get enough coffee flowing through my veins so my brain can work. Another part is because, as I said, this can be such an explosive topic. Finally, because it is very easy to get academic on this topic in order to keep from stepping on toes. Well, here's fair warning to those of you currently barefoot or in sandals -- hide your toes because here I come.

I've written about critique groups before. In that post I discussed the rules successful critique groups should follow and linked to some very good posts on the subject.

Today, I'd like to talk about another aspect of critique groups. And I'll admit this is partially brought on by Dave's post yesterday about working through real life issues and how they impact your writing. As a relatively new writer, I rely on my critique groups to help point out when I'm letting real life impact my work -- especially when it does so in a negative way. I'm not disciplined enough yet to always see it myself and the group setting allows me to see what others see in my work and then talk out possible solutions. Both of the groups I belong to are excellent for this and I appreciate their help more with each day that passes.

But there is a downside to critique groups, one I'd done my best to forget about until recently when a friend of mine asked me to read something they'd* written. This was the first time this person had shared anything with anyone for years. Which is a real shame because this person happens to be very talented. But, like so many writers I know, when it comes to their own writing, there is little confidence.

So, you ask, why had this person been hiding their work under the bed? Very simply, just as with me in my first group, they'd been torn down one too many times by someone else, someone who represented themselves as the expert. They'd been told what they were writing made no sense, wasn't worthy of submitting, was badly written... Well, you know the litany.

Hearing all that, I flashed back to my first group and my feelings of utter defeat. Our so-called expert expected us to write just like her. She gave revenge critiques if we didn't all just adore her submissions. And no one, ever, would be as good as she was. She crushed all of us down, just as my friend had been crushed by their critique group. How many other aspiring writers have faced the same situation?

A critique group should, in my opinion, serve several purposes. It should assist us in becoming better writers. It is a chance to socialize with others who share similar interests. Even some online critique groups have figured this out and have started chats and message boards for that purpose. These groups -- or even just critique partners -- aren't there to serve solely as ego boosters or as a platform to prove you're the best. Finally, a critique group is a chance to network. It is surprising the information you can get from a group. That writer sitting next to you might be a lawyer or a cop or a rocket scientist, a mother or a teacher or a doctor. They have knowledge that might help you make a character more believable. And, if they don't, they might know someone who does and be willing to make an introduction.

So what are your thoughts on critique groups and partners? Advice or warnings? Horror stories or success stories?

* Yes, I know I'm violating any number of grammar laws with my pronoun use here and later. But I am doing it to preserve the anonymity of my friend who reads this blog and would run and hide if they thought I was writing about them. All I can say is this person doesn't belong to the Bar, so the two of you who have been holding your breath can breathe now.