Stealing the Spotlight: When Sidekicks Take Over (ConCarolinas 2014 Writing Panel Notes)

Stealing the Spotlight: When Sidekicks Take Over

Chris A. Jackson, James R. Tuck, Michael G. Williams, Thomas Monaghan

Moderator: Edward McKeown

  

Thoughts about sidekicks:

- TM: Side characters that become pivotal, going from a name drop to a character that orchestrates the story’s end; it’s surprising how the small characters can change the story

- EM: The person who changes the most is often the secondary character (e.g. Spock from Star Trek, Watson)

- CJ: You can have more than one protagonist!

- MW: The moment the secondary character starts to take over: When they start behaving like the main characters of their own stories.

- TM: We’re more risky with our secondary and tertiary characters and we get to explore more of their dark side, and that makes them lively and brings them to the forefront.

- CJ: Also, if they’re secondary characters, they can more easily be killed, which adds tension.

- TM: The characters can take you for a ride. Backstory can be added for colour, then revisited as a critical issue later in the story.

- JT: It’s easy to overdo secondary characters.

- CJ: But you can add depth to the character without overwhelming.

- JT: Then it’s not backstory, it’s what’s happened in the past that has made that character become the person they are.

- CJ: It can be hard when the side story enrichens the story, but at the cost of way too much wordcount.

- EM: Secondary characters can go on to other adventures that are fairly incredible.

- MW: Secondary characters can be waiting to be used, in their own stories.

- TM: One incredible example is Vir from Babylon 5, going from a buffoon to the emperor of the Centauri republic.

- EM: Delenn also moved the entire series.

- JT: By the end of Buffy, everyone else is more important than her. She doesn’t change much.

- EM: Spike’s change on Buffy.

- CJ: Sec characters enrich the story. Take that. Ride that pony all the way to the barn. Just be aware of word count.

- MW: If a character entertains him, then he’ll go with it because he’s enjoying it.

- Audience comment: Monroe on Grimm, Regina from Once Upon a Time.

Audience Question: Spike’s arc was supposed to be static in the second season. What do you do when a character gets such overwhelming support that you keep him on?

- EM: That’s called Conan Doyle syndrome.

- TM: The characters tell him when he’s done.

- CJ: If his fanbase will pay him for more of that sec character, then he’ll write it, if that story is worthy of telling.

- TM: That’s the secret: the story has to be worth telling.

- CJ: Has a respect for his fans: he wouldn’t tell it if they didn’t think it was worth telling.

- MW: When a few say they want more, he doesn’t put much stock in it, but when lots say they do, then he puts way more.

Other examples and discussion:

- CJ: Characters who keep getting their asses kicked and still win.

- TM: That’s what tertiary and secondary characters are for.

- JT: Works for Dresden because the effects carry over into the next book. Bad writing is when the hero/protagonist is completely unaffected in the next book.

- Audience comment: Hannibal Lecter – was originally a side character in Manhunter.

- MW: People willing to completely say their motivations out loud.

- JT: I normally have filters, but they go way down. (And boy do they come off at the con.)

- TM: A villain doing what is necessary, what he sees as necessary for his people, but is he genuinely evil, or just going to extreme measures to have a positive outcome?

- EM: Are the rebels always the good guys?

- JT: Lex Luthor sees Superman if anything goes wrong, if Superman decided to take over the world he could. Black Panther and Dr. Doom are the same but one is good and one is evil.

- MW: Sometimes the hero and villain are each other’s heroes and villains.  

- JT: All of the Firefly crew is their own protagonist.

- CJ: Fallible protagonist: Any time Mal screws up is when the side characters can step in

- MW: Each character in Firefly stands out and it works.

- MW: When a side character goes off and comes back changed or even damaged, and it affects a later story.

- EM: There’s a synergy – some characters who don’t seem to exist without the hero, the whole is greater than the parts (Kirk/Spock/McCoy, Sherlock/Watson, etc)

- TM: Characters pair up, work together as a team, and it helps develop them further. This helps to advance the story better.

- EM: When the main POV character teamed with extraordinary character, and the extraordinary character is more than main character, and the POV character is more normal.

- TM: Like the Dr. Who companion. Gives him a chance to explain, not just for the companion but for the audience.

- TM: Often the side character comes up with solutions to problems.

Audience Question: Are secondary/tertiary characters the ones making the world, or does the protagonist make the world?

- TM, CJ: Both

- JT: Secondary characters can show parts of the world to broaden the world and bring more perspective without going into too much detail.

- MW: In Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, DS9 is a station, so there are a lot of walk-ons, which help make the world.

Audience Question: How do you prevent characters from other races/species from being token?

- EM: To some extent these characters are tokens. They are what they do. You could put in some characteristics that

- TM: Try to provide other characters from that same race, to give alternative views. Helps you paint a broader picture from both sides.

- CJ: Tertiary characters *are* setting. Keep them as real as you can without letting them take the story places you don’t want them to go. No one cares what colour the carpet is unless someone’s bleeding on it. No one cares about backstory unless it affects the story.

- TM: If they’re just that once

- EM: Cultures are easier to stereotype.

- JT: Write well. But also, these characters are not in their culture so they will react differently to what’s going on because it’s not where they’re form.

- MW: Cheesy trick: Have someone treat them like a token and see how they react.

Are sidekicks and main characters sometimes impossible without each other?

- EM: Xena and Gabrielle – better characters together than on their own.

- MW: Quark and Odo from Deep Space Nine. DS9 is the messy show.

- TM: Londo and Jakar in Babylon 5. Jakar’s journey through the show.

- JT: Captain America: The Winter Soldier is Black Widow’s movie just as much as Cap’s.

Audience Question: Ever had a beta reader or editor ask you to add or take away from a secondary character?

- CJ: Just kills the character who needs to go, has them die gloriously.

- EM: If they’re not worth the words, then demote the tertiary character who was secondary back to tertiary.

TM: What’s been your most disturbing experience with a character?

- (For him, flinching with a villain that revolted him. Had to kill that villain, go through the experience of killing him off, to be able to deal with him, the brothel breeding system the villain was involved in, and the dark things that happen that the society condones)

- EM: No one should extrapolate from writing to writer. But you have to identify with the bad guy to write the bad guy.

- CJ: Having to put yourself in the bad guy’s head. It’s clear what he’s doing and why he’s doing, but the means to the end that he has envisioned, getting into his head is hard but it needed to happen.

- MW: One villain had power to delete people from existence, and made for an unreliable narrator

- JT: When a side character goes off after the bad guy and gets hurt.

Technology vs. Magic (ConCarolinas 2013 Writing Panel Notes)

Here we are, back with more notes from ConCarolinas 2013! Please enjoy this discussion on technology and magic, how they conflict, and even more interesting, how they can work together.

* * *

Technology vs. Magic

Susan Roddey, Allen Wold, James R. Tuck, Edward McKeown

Moderator: Faith Hunter

FH: Technology vs. Magic? More like Technology and Magic. In today’s market, you can’t eliminate one or another; there needs to be an appreciation of both. Thoughts?

EM: Science fiction: Tries not to break a law of physics you and I might be familiar with, unless there’s a really good reason, except for Faster Than Light which is a given. The audience can bail if what you're trying to do is too much of a stretch. It interferes with the emotional connection with the character, which is why we’re reading the story anyway.


FH: Sometimes we want our magical systems to work in today’s world. How do you do that?

SR: Leans towards mythology, gods and monsters. Not a technical person, so deals with the magical/mythological, gives her more breathing room when being told she can or can’t do a thing – dealing with gods and goddesses makes it easier.

JT: Actual magic is based on ritual. You need do do the ritual to build the energy to make it work. Magical items are like batteries to power spells, but they can run out of energy. Magic is the 5th law of physics, doesn’t obsess over that.

FH: Her character Jane Yellowrock needs to mind the mass in the shifting, because mass matters – addresses that for believability.


FH: Do you have any rules of thumb, Allen?

AW: Internal consistency. Also, if something can be explained, then it’s not magic, it’s technology. Be internally consistent. If you have explanations, you need to found your explanations on something believable. Don’t violate your own consistency.


FH: In this changing world of physics: Where do you research? What do you do to make it internally consistent?

EM: He won’t enslave science to dramatic purpose; that’s cheating and undercuts the science fiction, which is sloppy and a disservice to the reader.

JT: Would have just manipulated the time-space continuum: Research is to jog his memory. He’s done research as pleasure reading; now it’s just looking up what he’d read before to confirm details.

SR: Same as JT; she uses mythology from around world, and fits which mythology works best without bending the rules too much. It's easier to work with the original story. She twists it with her imagination to make her present fit that past.

AW: You have to do research because you don’t want to put out incorrect details. Reads a lot of science, and does research when he realizes he doesn’t have the answer. But if it’s something nobody knows (eg string theory) no one can prove him wrong.

FH: Making sure our work satisfies the reader is the most important. We’re in a commercial business and we want to sell books, not have someone throw the book across the room. How far do you go with your science, and how often do you draw back off the science? E.g. doesn’t start discussing the minute details of Jane’s shapeshifting. What Don’t you put in the books in order to show your research?

AW: Don’t include the research, include the results of the research.

JT: If main character doesn’t know it, we don’t know it either.

SR: Best example: sword and sorcery, magic, - in 8500 words, created 40 pgs of research. None of her history or backstory is ever seen. The magic/tech is only used if needed, but she lets research keep her organized.

EM: First thing he wants to know is “what’s impossible?” Wants to know why things are occurring. Sets a limit on the magic. It has to be diffiuclt to use or everyone would use it for every single thing

AW: What the character doesn’t know, the reader doesn’t have to know, either. Real magic, there are no explanation. D&D magic, that’s just physics by another name.


FH: How do you look at your own writing? What research elements do you need? Talk about your own magical systems.  What laws of physics do you adhere to and what don’t you?

SR: Lucky’s Game: ancient mythology, aspects of a culture that is dead to us except what we have written down; works on the assumption that people had these abilities but have lost the knowledge of what to do. Male character is descended from magic; Main Character (female) is human and knows none of this.

JT: Deacon Chalk books – Deacon has only the very minor ability to sense supernatural. It doesn’t make sense. Magic is based on ritual, but if you don’t do the ritual, you don’t Crowley: Magic is inserting your will against the universe.

EM: Rations magic. One vampire in a city. To overdo the magic is to take away the perils and challenges the character has to overcome. Keep it believable.

 AW: Magic is going to cost you just as much energy as you would to do it another way. – Really good magic, the price has been paid elsewhere. Any real magic, someone’s figured out how to pay the price.

FH: Wolves in small space; shows it. Just enough info as the story needs. Don’t explain everything at once. Even when writing a standalone. Layer out the disseminatinon of information.

EM: As long as the reader’s persuaded what the writer knows. E.g. the metallic taste in the mouth when firing a gun; shows that writer knows. Enough persuasive detail.


FH: The things we add and the things we leave out. How do you deal with the problem when you find you’ve made a mistake? E.g. shooting in low-cut blouse (gives a girl range kisses). When you find you’ve made a mistake, how do you address it?

JT: Just ignore it and move on.

Comment from author in the audience: Told everyone she made a mistake.

EM: A book’s like a rocket launch; once it’s out, just apologize. If you self publish electronically, just fix it, because you can upload the changes yourself. As long as the change doesn’t undermine the character, you're fine.

JT: Move on and work on the next thing.

SR: Learn from the mistake, pay attention next time. Fix it in the next book.

EM: Know the details.


FH: About the penalties of magic. Nothing can be easy. Limit the magic in the system. Even if you don’t know how it works. If you start ignoring the laws, you have a crappy system. What price do you exact of your characters?

SR: Her main character has the ability to move between worlds, but not the physiology, and it takes a toll.

EM: A guardian angel could help all the time, but it would make for a terrible story.

 JT: Always having a physical cost is a mistake. Sometimes the magic’s got to have another cost, e.g. your soul (such as the cost of using black magic in his third Deacon Chalk novel).

FH: Has left lots of openings. Questions unanswered. Doesn’t close off everything because she hopes for more novels.


Audience Question: What do you do when it seems the characters want to take the story in a different direction?

EM: He's a prisoner of his characters; more concerned about running out of something to say.

JT: He's the merciless god of his universe; the characters do what he tells them to.

The Editor's Work is Never Done (ConCarolinas 2012 Writing Panel Notes)

Fitting for the end of the week, on this drowsy Vancouver Friday afternoon, I've got notes from last year's ConCarolinas writing panel on editors. Here's some great info to consider about the editing side of writing, and what editors are keeping an eye out for when looking at your work.

* * * 

The Editor’s Work is Never Done

Faith Hunter, Edmond Schubert, Edward McKeown, Allen Wold, Mason Lavin

Allen Wold – Writer’s workshops

Mason Lavin – Breathless Press (ebook erotica)

Faith Hunter – Written 20+ books as a writer so far under two names, but for the first time she’s just negotiated with Kalayna Price her first anthology, and they’ll be the editors of an anthology with big names. Is learning to be an editor

Ed Schubert – Edits Orson Scott Card's Intergalactic Medicine Show

There are different kinds of editors:
1.    Developmental – does your story make sense ? Characters? Arc? Language? Char stay true to self? The acceptance is step 1.
2.    Copyediting – do your chars eyes stay the same colour? Same name? Formatting? Spelling? Copyeditors not their job to do developmental.
3.    Line-editing.

What an editor does:

EM: Helps the writer tell the story in their voice their way. But keeps continuity, char, story. Are characters acting like real p eople, in terior logic?
AW: line editing in writer’s workshops. First draft as raw as it can be (and all first drafts are crap)  let’s people know if what they’re working on is worth working onl Litle tiny details necessary for a beginning writer to learn. Then encourages ppl to submit. Looks at finished stories, too. Will shed blood if asked.

Sometimes there are authors so big that their editing turns to crap.

The truth is, everybody needs to be edited. We all need to be edited.

You could hire a developmental editor if you want to, but the acquisitions editor might ask you to change everything again.

Order of Events:
1.    Have a polished novel.
2.    Submit to agents (conferences, slush, etc)
3.    Acceeptance by agnent
4.    Edit letter from agent (preferable)
5.    Agent submits to editors of choice (auction sometimes, but not common)
6.    Acquisitions developmental editor at pub house looks at it. Keeps track of publishing schedule.
7.    Rewrite for developmental editor.
8.    Second developmental/line editing letter. Sometimes a third happens. (Sommetimes you have to fix one problem before you can go onto the next).
9.    Line edits
10.    Copy edits

When ES buys short stories:
-    Ideally it's gone through a lot more beta readers, conferences, conventions first
-    He's looking for something close to done as possible
-    He does as much developmental and line editing as he can, simultaneously
-    Most important, he keeps in mind that the story is *the writer's* story. He’s simply in the polishing business.

AW: The best editors don’t need a lot of words to  he good editors can pinpoint in just a few words exactly what’s wrong.

ES: No one can edit themselves.

ML: Sometimes you have to work with them a lot before the story's good to go.

ES: If the problem is convoluted, there's lots more work involved, so he's more likely to reject the story.

FH: What do you have to say about editing?

EM: All of it’s solicited. Language of displomacy (tis isn’t working). Does more hand-holding. Doesn’t matter if he likes the story, looking for whether the story is well-done and valid to his anthologies.

AW: Editors should be diplomatic. Has had firsthand experience at an editor being undiplomatic.

ES: Editing is a very subjective process. Unless you get multiple editors or agents telking you you hae the same problem, take things under consideration but don’t live or die by it. A form rejection just means it’s not right for that editor on that day. Feedback is rare. 10% if that. Perosnalized rejections are awesome.

EM: Like a party – if one person says you’re drunk, slow down a bit, if two, slow a little more, if three, take the lampshade off your head and stop

ML: Encouraged to give personalized rejections. Have learned the hard way whyh editors don’t respond. It’s not a conversation. Follow guideliens.

Make sure you pay attention to submission guidelines! Follow them! Do it anyway. Whatever their reasons may be. If you give them an excuse to dump your story bc they didn’t follow the guideliens, that’s an excuse to dump them. Guidelines exist for a reason, whether you agee with them or not.

ML: Erotica has content guidelines. Pay attention to content guidelines.

ML: IF you write YA, don’t submit to adult call. If you write audlt,, don’t submit it to a YA pub.

FH: If you do something aggregious to a publisher, they’ll meet at cons. Same thing with stalkers. Editors and authors communicate. Don’t bug them if they’re chatting alone with each other. If  you’re asked for an exclusive, tell them you’ve sent 3 chapters to X, and give the name. And say, :”I’ve sent x quewries out bout I won’t send more”. If someone else wans it, say “Y has it, but I will if I hear back”.

The number of people who give you free editing is dropping. So very rare.

Are agents doing editorial work now?

FH: Dif agents do make suggestions, esp. after submitting after face to face at a con. Agents appraocehd that way often explain why the story it is less sellable. Lucienne does a lot of that.

ES: Lots of editors leaving pub houses bc of cuts. Agents with an editing background. Ackin to dev editing. Still looking for the stuff that’s close to being ready. Lots of ex-eds being agents and using their ed background to help their new work.

AW: Will throw out stuff if the first page or first lines are bad.

EM: Editors are not gods, maybe not good writers, but they’re good *readers*.


What is your process?

EM – looks for someone that is solid, has social skills, willing to be worked with – if it can’t get through your writing group, you shouldn’t be sending it out. Duty of writer is to listen to the critiques. No arguing with critiquers. Also, um, no arguing with editors. Unless you plan to be in the living room of everyone who reads to explain yourself, it needs to be fixed.

ML: Don’t argue with editors. But it can lead to discussion of “But I want to keep thjis” “Then you need to fix this or that” and better edits have come out of it.

ES: (In addition to above) Thinks: Is it good? Are they good to work with?

NG: The qualities: Good, fast, friendly – you can get away with two of them, but don’t be a pain in the ass.

ML: Don’t panic and tell them two days before the deadline that you can't make the deadline.

AW: You can ask for an extension but don’t turn it in late.

Do you have any final words?

EM: “Blessed are the flexible, for they should not be bent out of shape.”

AW: When you get an edit, you can do one of three things – do what the ask for, disregard, or find another way.

ML: Don’t take it personally. And don’t quit just because you were told no.

FH: It's a numbers game. Get the right product to the right person at the right time. Work on another piece, and if it doesn't work, try it again somewhere else

ES: Thank you.