Myths about the Writing Life (ConCarolinas 2014 Writing Panel Notes)

Myths About the Writing Life

Tamsin L. Silver, Misty Massey, Claudette Marco, Jim Bernheimer, A.J. Hartley, Roy Mauritsen, James R. Tuck

Moderator: Faith Hunter

Myths of the writer’s life (read aloud)

1. My solid gold hummer doesn’t spit money

2. Royalty checks are big

3. People always want to write your books

4. No revisions

5. No day job

6. You need a big publisher

7. Once you write in one genre you can only write in that genre

8. All you need is an agent

9. A book deal equals fame

10. You need to write chapters in linear sequence

11. A great-selling novel equals an automatic movie deal

12. Just about getting your first book out, and it’s all gravy after book 1

13. Publicity and marketing people at your publishers ensure your book gets read

14. Book sales are counted in hundreds of thousands

Myth: Publicity and marketing people at your publisher ensure your book gets read.

AJ: People assume that if you’re with a major publisher that marketing budgets are divided equally between authors. The person with the higher advance gets the higher budget. Unless you’re one of a very small percentage within that house, there is virtually no publicity or support.

TS: Her publisher told her promotion was her job, and didn’t help after a year, so she pulled her book.

RM: Went for a smaller press because he wanted more control.

MM: Not only did the PR people not do anything, they weren’t clear on what she should do.

FH: PR is the lowest position in publishing. New authors are often taken care of by inexperienced PR staff. Best to get a PR firm to help you learn. Online ads and referrals are best. If you don’t know how to do your own PR then you lose out.

JB: (mostly self published) Marketing time will eat into your writing time if you’re not careful. Be prepared to part with money to get noticed.

CM: (self published) Successful at conventions. Blog tours didn’t help much. Being at conventions, especially speaking on panels, helped her make connections.

AJ: Twitter blew up when Richard Armitage read his Hamlet book. Made it hard to keep up, have a dayjob, and write.

Myth: You need a big publisher to sell your work.

TS: Self-published, at book 5, and someone who works at Vampire Freaks.com loved her books and asked her to write a new online vampire show, so began work on Skye of the Damned, learned how to produce a show, and as  a result the cross promotion led to more book sales. Don’t be afraid of what you don’t know. If you don’t know it, you can learn it.

FH: The learning curve never stops.

MM: Releasing a book of short stories on her own featuring Mad Kestrel because there has been a long gap in releasing books 1 and 2.

CM: All the marketing is on you if you are self-published. Used CreateSpace as publishing venue so that she could put more money into editing, cover art, etc.

JB: You don’t even need the brick and mortar stores, either. Self-publishing – Create Space, Lightning Source. Create Space is more print on demand. Lightning Source will send you the bill for returned books put in brick and mortar stores.

RM: Brick and mortar stores are fighting, competing with other books. Prefers to take books to convention regardless of small press or large. Works in graphic design and now designs covers for other writers. Likes having more control with a smaller press.

FH: Brick and mortar stores are going away is what we’re hearing. But?

AJ: There’s a myth going around that b and m stores are going away. It’s hard to make a real living without a big pub and books in physical stores. Doesn’t have the skills or time for publicity and marketing his books, so he wants the big press to promote him. It comes down to what you want to achieve. Grocery money? Being out there, sharing stories? Self pub. Consistently 50K a year or more, very difficult to do that as a self-published author. Traditional publishing is not dying. Some of those who self pub should not be putting their work out. The initial myth that you need a traditional pub to get your book out is not true. The new myth that we can also load up to Amazon and make a fortune is also untrue.

FH: The myth that you can quit your dayjob is also untrue. She just quit her dayjob, decades in. Hit bestseller list, hired a PR firm, and the firm let her down, didn’t get much attention from publisher until they noticed her books stayed on the extended list. Hired her own PR firm.

AJ: The NYT list is calculated based on numbers of copies shipped from warehouses to stores, while the USA Today list is based on number of sales. Also, Booklist and many others have their own lists.

FH: Making the bestseller list did not translate to more PR when she hit the bestseller list the first time, but then eventually did.

Audience Question: What’s more important, print and e-book sales or hardcover?

FH: Mass markets don’t make much per book. Print and e-book sales

JB: Has been self-publishing, and the most he’s ever made in one year is 22K. Nice supplemental money is great, but don’t quit your dayjob.

FH: But until you hit a bestseller list, you’ll be lucky to make even 20K in traditional publishing. The first book selling for a million to a pub is very rare.

JT: There’s no money in publishing. This isn’t a get-rich-quick scheme. Don’t do this for the money, do it for yourself.

AJ: Those who make the most money are hybrids, selling out of print backlist via self-publishing, and also selling traditional work.

FH: Publishers aren’t letting go of the print rights like they used to. An agent helps to keep it. If you go for a traditional press, have an agent.

JT: If you don’t have an agent, demand things out of your contract. Have a lawyer look after it. A contract lawyer can help too.

Myth: Once you get that first book published, you’re set.

FH: This is more for the traditionally-published folk, but how hard is it if you haven’t been traditionally published to keep publishing?

CM: It is difficult, and conventions take money, but does get the satisfaction of putting book out there and interest in writing to work. Tried to find an agent, and some were interested, but eventually it didn’t work out. Liked finding her own editor, connecting that with story, finding own cover artist, etc. Not much money, but she has the satisfaction of living out her dream.

FH: Even for traditionally published it can take a lot. Hotel rooms at a con, meals, flights, etc, are not typically comped.

MM: Eight years after Mad Kestrel, finally got invited to a con that comped a hotel room.

RM: Being able to share a story, create something, that’s the satisfying aspect for him.

FH: We all do this because we love to do this.

TS: I can’t not write. As an artist, this is extremely fulfilling. Remembers that she is not writing for anyone but herself.  It’s always better to write for you, not for the people around her

FH: It sucks having to write something just to pay the bills.

AJ: there is a downside to quitting your dayjob. You become a slave to the market. There’s a freedom to knowing that the sales of your next novel don’t determine whether you get to keep your house.

MM: Most people do not have the discipline to treat it as a job in your own home. Most people are writing in their home and when you’re in your home the brain is telling you to do all the things, the chores, the laundry, and Facebook, etc. You have to be super disciplined to not have a day job and write in your home.

Me: Three times I’ve taken a week off just to focus on writing, and three times the week has been filled.

FH: There are no benefits for those who quit their dayjobs.

Myth: You’ll be able to write at conventions.

JT: I’m too busy drinking with friends.

TS: I go out to eat and drink with friends.

JB: Maybe a bit but cons are an opportunity pit.

AJ: Used to bring his laptop. *snort*

RM: Cons are an opportunity to not write, to make connections.

TS: It’s important to talk about writing, so you have so much more energy when you get back to that

FH: The networking that happens at cons happens at the bar. You can do this even as a recovering alcoholic.

Audience Question: How do you write at home without social media?

FH: Rewards herself: she can only check FB after she finishes every page, if she wants.

JT: No internet in his office. Researches things later. “Research” turns into time spent on FB.

CM: Sets goals, takes breaks.

TS: Easy to sit and write.

Audience Question: Advice on finding cover artist if you’ve self-publised a book?

RM: You can find a lot of great artists through Deviant Art.

JT: If you buy a sketch from a cover artist, you can’t use it for a book cover. There’s a big contract involved first.

CM: Freelance.com.

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.

The Art of the Sex Scene (ConCarolinas 2014 Writing Panel Notes)

Hello again! As promised in Wednesday's notes, here's what I took away from what was lovingly called "the sex panel". Once again, a different take from what you can find under this tag in the archives. What else can I say? Enjoy! ;)

* * *

The Art of the Sex Scene

Tyffani Clark Kemp, Susan H. Roddey, Alexandra Christian, Crymsyn Hart, Marcia Colette, Tamsin L. Silver, James R. Tuck

Moderator: Emily Lavin Leverett

                                                                                                

When you chose to write under a pseudonym, if you did, why?

EL: Edited under a pseudonym because of professional commitments.

TS: Chose a penname because of father’s religious affiliations,

CH: Hart is real, Crymsyn is not, used to work at a place where she might have been fired

AC: Teaching second grade when she started

SR: Writes under 2 names because writes wildly different things. Never intended to write romance. Not hiding anything.

TC: Wanted to publish each genre as a different name because of friends who would have wanted her to write good girl

AC: Why would we have sex if we weren’t supposed to enjoy it? Jesus needs love too.

JT: Working on a Christian erotica in his spare time, called Come to Jesus.

EL: The point is, a lot of it was about our jobs. It’s okay to write something where people get their heads chopped off but it’s not okay to show sex. In this insecure job market people don’t want to risk unemployment.

Audience question: What about copyright issues and theft?

JT: The second you create it, you own the copyright. Frauds and ripoffs will only happen when you’re successful, so don’t worry about it right now.

CH: There was a situation where one person was lifting whole passages from old Harlequin romances, but only after several novels, and it was a reader who picked it up. She’ll probably never write again.

Audience question: Are erotica writers more geared towards finding an agent, or less?

EL: The things erotic writers sell the best are shorts, which usually aren’t represented.

AC: Publishing is so not trad right now; agents don’t want to pick up anyone unless they’re guaranteed to make sales, and lots of smaller presses don’t require an agent.

EL: Even bigger ones don’t want an agent.

JT: Write short, write quick, submit to as many as possible, and once you have a platform and some fans, self publish (from then on). Erotica is where the money is.

AC: And your genre is also important if you’re going to go that route. What’s selling right now are BDSM, male/male.

Why?

EL: Men are sexy. Several men are several sexy.

TS: Apparently women not regularly reading regular romance not being comfortable with their sexuality.

JT: Like men watching girl on girl porn.

EL: Edited a lot of m/m, and a lot of them were gay love stories.

SR: The type of women reading this are not outwardly comfortable with their sexuality or admit they’re sexual creatures.

AC: Participate in your own sex fantasies.

Audience comment: m/m Yaoi manga has been popular for years in Japan.

Audience question:  What has changed with women’s roles in erotica, and them taking the stereotypical passive roles?

EL: It can be anything these days.

SR: Depends on the subject, and on who’s writing. Sometimes you can pick up that they’re extremely misogynistic and extremely angry. Occasionally it’s a man you’ve stuck boobs on.

AC: Traditionally in erotica the female roles have been a lot more empowered than they are in traditional romance. A lot of the new wave involves the women being fascinated by the idea of being dominated. A curiosity. We may be trending back that way.

EL: One of the fascinations with 50 Shades is that women are working and taking care of the house, and like the idea of a guy coming in and and saying they’lll take care of everything. It’s a pleasant fantasy.

Audience question: Recently read an article which said that sex lives are disrupted by men trying to make love to their wives to make porn. Are you conscious of realistic sex vs. porn sex when you write?

CH: Make the body parts match up.

EL: And unless you’re writing weird sci-fi the dick can only be in one place at once. But experiencing sex via the written word is different from experiencing it visually.

AC: Issue with the concept that erotic writers and erotic romance writers are writing instruction manuals. A lot of people are taking fantasy in books and porn on television too seriously. Sex is supposed to be about fun, and fun is not always possible in the real world.

JT: When you write a sex scene and you try for reality you realize that reality is messy.

TC: Wants to read something different, steamy, not something she can do in the bedroom.

EL: Awkward sex scenes can be sweet and can even be effective if done right.

Audience question: Do you need experience to write it?

JT: You need research partners.

EL: Or you need the BDSM handbook.

TS: Read books on it, get to know it, look up things on the internet like you probably do already, read books by writers writing great erotica. Emulate what you see. Write stuff, get feedback. Just as you would with any other writng.

MC: Critique groups will give you great feedback.

CH: You can buy the mannequin dolls you can pose. It helps if you’re writing a 4-5 person ménage.

AC: As with anything, readaing in your genre, reading good things, is important. You don’t need a ton of experience. But it does help to have a little bit. Also, watch some porn.

SR: Yes, watch porn. If you don’t have a lot of experience, it helps to have experience of hwo things work and what goes where and what it looks like so that you can make it look okay on paper.

JT: Watching porn is great, but as a male writer if you’re going to watch porn, you have to take porn with a grain of salt, because those ladies in the more extreme porn are not human.

EL: Don’t write “She was so excited when he came and she didn’t.”

AC: Thomas Roche writes incredible erotica. Also, Ellora’s cave is pushing their for men line.

TC: Was a virgin 4-5 months before she started writing her erotica, so you don’t need to be super experienced but you do need to know the basics.

Audience comment: Has toured a BDSM club and sex toy stores.

Audience question: What is the most difficult thing about writing sex?

CH: Making the sex not boring after 80 books. Will cut and paste, then change it because you can only have so many insert tab-A into slot-B.

SR: Sometimes when writing an erotic romance, you can dim the lights and close the door.

JT: You don’t have to constantly one-up yourself. Hopefully sex doesn’t become routine but you do learn what becomes comfortable and enjoyable. There’s a temptation to starting off Vanilla and making it more creative or escalating it. That’s not necessary.

TS: Keeps in mind: How does the sex move the story along? When does someone realize there’s more than just sex. Emotions are important as well. It’s a way to keep it fresh.

AC: Humor is how she keeps it fresh. Sex is supposed to be fun. If it’s not, you shouldn’t be doing it or reading it.

MC: Likes to change up the scene. Change where the sex takes place, to make the sex interesting.

SR: You do it because you can.

Note from the authors: This is very binary. M/M, F/F, M/F – but one thing to keep in mind is that you can’t forget there are things people consider non-normative. There are spaces in erotica where these non-normative voices can be explored. Which is really important in the SF/F community.

AC: Trans is the up-and-coming term.

SR: “Gender fluid”, too.

Romance in Fantasy: How Much is Too Much? (ConCarolinas 2014 Writing Panel Notes)

Hey everyone! So I'm back with more notes. Emerald City Comic-Con was amazing, and I can't wait to share the notes I brought back from that trip. But, owing to my less than spectacular summer and fall, I still have everything I learned at last year's ConCarolinas! So, with that in mind, let's have a gander at the first topic ...

* * *

Romance in Fantasy – How Much is Too Much?

Chris A. Jackson, James R. Tuck, Tamsin L. Silver, C.L. Wilson, Susan H. Roddey, Marcia Colette, Alexandra Christian, Crymsyn Hart

Moderator: Janine Spendlove

So, How Much is Too Much (if you’re writing a straight up fantasy novel)?
JT: Love between two people is what makes this whole world happen. If you don’t have love, if your character doesn’t have a connection with another character, then the story doesn’t feel right. Even platonic love.
CJ: RPG fiction is steering away from it, and the fiction suffers.

Romance writers – do you set out to write a romance novel, or does it just happen?
AC: It just happens. She never set out to write a romance novel. Always about the story first. And the stories always seem to have a relationship in them. That’s the kind of story she wants to tell. She writes the story she sets out to read. The interaction between the characters is the part she likes best.
SR: It’s not about writing a romance novel, it’s about writing a story. If the romance happens, that’s how the story was going to naturally progress.
MC: One thing she likes most about the characters is the whole journey. When they set out, you don’t see something happening, then there’s always this sexual tension that builds. She goes with the tension, even if it doesn’t explode until page 200.
Audience comment: The hero becomes worthy of the relationship, worthy of the heroine falling in love with.
AC: It’s okay for her to save him on occasion.
JT: It’s happening in the Deacon Chalk series. Made a conscious decision to write a character that’s completely broken. A girl he meets is the one who saves him.
CL: Sets out to write romance in every single book. Both the fantasy and the romance elements are equally important to the storyline. The woman has to earn her happy ending as well. Both have personal emotional and external issues that together they overcome and they cement a solid lasting relationship. There’s always an external plot but the romance plot drives the action forward and ideally contributes to resolving the external problems as well.

Without Naming Specific Stories, What Are Pet Peeves of Yours?
JS: That rescuing the princess is presented as a reward. It promotes an undercurrent of misogyny.
SR: Finding a book that has so much promise and looks interesting but then the story can’t decide where it wants to go, and you lose sight of the world or the romance because it can’t make up its mind. Especially a romance novels with fantasy elements.
AC: Men with boobs. Loves to read urban fantasy with a good romance. But she’s sick of the urban fantasy stereotype that she has to either be a whiny waif, or a bitchy tomboy who would basically be a guy but has a female name.
JT: Women are strong. They’re vessels of life. If men had babies there would be no people in the world. So the trope of superstrong feminine characters in fantasy doesn’t need to happen. Women are strong enough already. They are stronger in different ways.
JS: Women in the army bring diverse things to the table.
CJ: The idea that the character is incomplete without a relationship. You are a human being without a relationship. A relationship is something else. The relationship doesn’t complete you.
JT: Hates the fated love, “we have to be together”. Likes it when they have to choose, they have to earn it. Not love at first sight. If love at first sight happens it should fuck up their lives completely.
MC: Using the love triangle as the main source of conflict. If you can’t come up with a better storyline than that, just don’t write the book.
JS: Man-Made-Boy made it work out, but that’s an exception.
Audience comment: When they’re in the midst of danger and they stop for a sex scene. Or there’s so much sex in the book that they don’t manage to accomplish anything.
AC: Erotica and erotic romance is not pornography. Pornography is about the sex. Erotica and erotic romance is about the story. More artistic. About the relationship.
CW: In romance, the relationship helps them grow. In erotica, the sex is the catalyst for change.

What about inter-species romance? (E.g. humans and dragons)
CJ: The idea that non-humans are people isn’t much explored, and he enjoyed bursting that bubble.
JS: Falling in love in interspecies isn’t hard, but how do you tackle intimacy?
CJ: Magic to help make it work.
SR: The problem is whether or not they can classify it as bestiality if you have a human having sex with an animal or similar creature, an act that is illegal in most states in the US. Is it illegal for a human to have a relationship with the animal when the animal is not in human form?
Audience: If Amazon finds out a shapeshifter has sex with a human in their non-human form they can pull it.

Audience question/comment: Unhappy with the trope of “when a woman is raped but they fall in love with their rapist and that (somehow) makes it okay”.
JT: That story happens more than we’d like it to.
JS: We’re becoming more culturally aware of that. That’s what matters.
CJ: Know your market, know your readers.
SR: If the relationship is the product of the environment in which you set your story, that may justify it more. Technically, what we do today would be considered different or obscene in a different world, no matter how bad.

Audience question: What about falling out of love?
JS: Not fun to write, but it’s interesting and fascinating to understand why those two people are no longer together. Every relationship you ever have is a failed relationship until your last one.
CW: Tries to appeal to romance, so often it’s the villain causing the split, but eventually strives for a happy ending.
JT: When you step out of genre you can do a really good job of it. E.g. the movie Closer.

When writing so many intimate scenes, how do you keep it fresh?
CH: Has a tendency to go way outside the box, dives into space yetis and shapeshifting aliens and bigfoots.
CJ: Writing an intimate scene that isn’t physically possible is just as hard as writing a fight scene like that.
MC: When the toys are in the room. Puts people in different places, different situations, keep it fresh.
TS: Also, keeping it fun. When working on it, characters became friends and to keep it interesting but keep the lighthearted playfulness helps.
CW: It isn’t about the sex. It’s about the emotional state of the hero and heroine at that moment. There is more happening
JT: When you write a sex scene, you have to ask yourself what the point is. Why? The purpose and the feel has to have meaning of some sort to be relevant to the story.
CJ: Not so much about self gratification as it is about enjoying the other person’s gratification.
ST: If writing a book with explicit sex and lots of scenes, you don’t have to write out every single act. It’s okay to fade to black, move onto something different see what you want to see.

Note: after that last question, the authors all emphasized an important fact:

“THIS IS NOT THE SEX PANEL!” 

Check back Friday for that.

A Satisfying Ending (ConCarolinas 2013 Writing Panel Notes)

As Edmund notes when he introduces the panel, this was very fitting that this session was the last writing panel of the convention. Not only was it about endings, bur for me it was the end of my trip. Technically, I should have left sooner. I was a bit on the edge for this last hour; my buddy Alexander and I were poised to make a mad dash to the airport, since my flight was supposed to leave two hours later, he was giving me a lift, and the hotel was a good forty-five minutes away. Suspense!

Sort of.

My ending turned out to be anticlimactic because as it happened, my flight had been pushed back an hour and somehow I was never notified, and I didn't realize I could or should check online. (Not a satisfying ending, IMO, even if I was okay in the end. Just sayin'.) So I made it there just fine, with plenty of time to spare, and the only pain being my as-it-turned-out-unnecessary anxiety. (And I am never booking with that travel agency again. Sometimes, the points just aren't worth it.)

* * *

A Satisfying Ending
Aaron Rosenberg, James R. Tuck, Carrie Ryan, James Maxey
Moderator: Edmund Schubert
ES: It’s about wrapping up. (which makes this panel appropriate for wrapping up a con). A great opening brings the readers in in, but a great ending brings them back. It’s also about keeping the promise that book made at the beginning. How do you make sure you are making your reader happy with your ending?

AR: The reader’s two reactions should be: Surprise and rightness. “I should have seen that coming … why didn’t I see that coming?” Plenty of authors go for surprise and not the rightness. Example: J.K. Rowling lives to surprise with her endings, but doesn’t focus on the rightness. So he has an idea of his ending even before he begins writing, to help steer his way.

Surprise without rightness: When Sherlock sees  a clue not mentioned before.

Rightness without surprise: When the reader can see the ending coming from a mile away … so why keep reading?

JT: Endings should be both surprising and inevitable, no matter how much it took you by surprise it should be the ending that works. So that by the wrap of the story the reader can close the book and feel satisfied.

CR: That’s where revisions come in: go through and make it work. Give the characters a challenge at beginning that they fail, and the ending is they succeed (unless this is a tragedy). What challenge can you give at the beginning? What changes can you throw at them to show that these changes have happened? In books, we should go bigger than real life. When there are certain stakes, then ending has to match those stakes.


ES: He has to write with an ending in mind. He can’t write without the ending in mind. He wrote his ending first, and wrote towards it. Has anyone else tried that?

AR: No, because it constrains everything written up til then. Knows the ending, but wants the ending to make sense, doesn’t want to restrict possibilities along the way. Doesn’t want to narrow down his options.

CR: You hit the point of panic (speaking as a pantser) – the point for the reader where there is no way the characters are going to get out of it. Sometimes you have to go back to the beginning to see what you’ve already seeded in. The answer is often already in the text. You’ve laid out the pattern for yourself even if you’re completely unaware of it.

AR: Pantsed his work No Small Bills, until he was asked to show an outline, and realized that even without plotting deliberately the ending fit surprisingly well (after much panic).


Audience question: With writing, they know how the ending is going to go, but they don’t want to finish it because they like the world they created so much. How do you get over leaving that universe behind?

AR: There are different kinds of writers. Some can take a year or two on their books. Some have to write several a year. You have an internal story editor. Trust them when they tell you you’re done.

JT: Gets to the end of the book because he’s out there and wants to make money.

CR: Sometimes the ending you know may not be the right ending. If you’re having trouble leaving, it may be the story’s way of telling you that it’s not the right way to go.

ES: He doesn’t like to talk a novel to death. Using David B. Coe’s soda pop analogy: every time you take the cap off, more fizz escapes. Write that first draft as quickly and badly as possible, then go back and fix it.

JT: Writing is something he’s enjoyed and wanted to do. But with his current project, he wasn’t enjoying it, so he stopped and changed things and now is back to writing.

CR: Sometimes there’s a fear of once it’s done, moving to the next step. Revising, querying, submitting is hard and scary. It’s no longer that safe feeling. You have to step out of your comfort zone, leave your story behind.


ES: Let’s talk about endings that didn’t work for you. Why?

AR: Roger Zelazny’s Amber. The end of 5th book in 2nd series, when all the plot threads get dealt with in the last 20 pages. Merlin makes up with evil siblings. WTF. Merlin sets a truce with his secondary enemy, too. He (AR) wonders if it was from the editor’s pressure.

JT: The end of the Hunger Games trilogy. There’s a betrayal of the character, who she was in book 1 and 2. Also, Dan Brown’s DaVinci Code – solid beginning, poor ending; Deception Point, 3 pages from ending, the author pulls in a submarine deus ex machine solution.

CR: Re: The Hunger Games - When your character is unconscious for a large part of the book, you should really revise. A book where the character wakes up having been unconscious and has  the climax explained to them, really doesn’t work. With another book read shortly after finishing Hunger Games: the last 15 pages were better written, provided more interest, and left a good taste in her mouth going forward. Afterwards, CR realized that the taste left in mouth is what you need to go for. The power of a solid ending. You can take a mediocre book and create and ending that turns readers into evangelists.

ES: So much of life doesn’t have satisfying endings, tidy endings, people want sense of closure. An author of a book he read violated the magic system after outlining exactly how it works and does not work, and that ruined the story for him.

CR: Even a controversial ending – one that leaves people who want something else, and hotly debate about ending, create passion in readers.


ES: Deus ex machina: why is it so incredibly irritating today?

JT: Since we write speculative fiction, we can write those endings, but we have to show that the world is set up as a way for that to work. It’s still very difficult to justify.

CR: But that setup negates the Deus ex. The deus ex machina is something from out of nowhere. The reason it’s so unsatisfying is because we as readers want to be involved. We want to solve the mystery, want to know te clues are there. Davinci code was so popular because reader goes through steps with the character and solve it with the main character.

ES: Readers like to be involved. They like to figure things out and feel smart. That level of engagement is satisfying.

JM (who joined the panel late): 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea ends with “good thing we escaped that huge whirlpool / but I don’t know how we escaped”.

AR: But there are also different cultural expectations. Hong Kong movie watchers expect that they might not get a happy ending. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea was French. Hollywood makes a lot of the endings happy, and that’s not always the point.

JM: The original Tarzan was not a happy ending but it was a good one, because Tarzan sacrifices his chance to be with Jane because he’s found someone that would make her life happier. Tarzan’s lie to Jane saves the book.

ES: A great story can overcome poor writing.

Audience comment: Our whole culture is based on the dream, the optimism, that things can turn out different and better. That’s why we want happy endings.


Audience question: What if the ending doesn’t match expectations?

ES: The power of expectations is human nature: if you set up expectations and don’t follow through, readers will be disappointed.

JM: Robocop ends when he shoots the bad guy and the credits roll before the guy hits the ground.

CR: This can be easy to overlook, but your reader has earned that ending. They’ve made it to the end of the book. They’ve earned seeing it end in a satisfying way, seeing how life has changed. Don’t go on and on, but have some time after (the denouement) for readers to enjoy.


Audience question: What is the promise, exactly?

AR: There’s a difference between the promise the writer makes and the promise the character makes. The character wants something, but the  author knows they’ll wind up in another direction. As long as the author’s promise is satisfied, the character gets the appropriate ending.

ES: The promise is that there will be growth in this character. The story is about growth of the character.

AR: The story is either plot-driven, where characters are inconsequential (eg. James Bond, where the story is what matters), or the story is about the character.

JM: In the movie Rocky, the character’s promise is broken when he doesn’t win the fight, but the real promise is that by agreeing to fight and taking his life seriously, he’s become a better person and turned his life around. The goal isn’t winning the fight; he’s the one that became stronger and fought fifteen rounds. He learned more from that experience than if he’d won the fight.

CR: There’s usually a difference between what the character thinks they want and what they need.

JM: In his first novel in the DragonAge series, Bitterwood, the story seems like a typical fantasy, and then at the end the reader finds that humans have genetically modified lizards to make them dragons, who then evolved, but you don’t get that until the last few pages of the book. (ES: This is a brilliant twist out of nowhere, and there are ruins described and artifacts from the past of our civilization left throughout the book as clues.) The magic turns out to be nanotech. It was called “SF in fantasy drag.” But the publisher marketed it as fantasy. JM told people it was SF. He wasn’t trying to make a secret out of it, but that’s not how it was sold. He stopped writing that series because he felt it was a bigger and bigger lie to continue to write pretending it was fantasy.

AR: There’s fooling readers to demonstrate how clever you are, and fooling readers to make them think about something. The cheat in the first example impresses for half a second, and then it disappoints.

CR: Part of the reason a cheat is disappointing is that we’ve all read something like that. It’s fun being able to do the first to surprise readers, but you still don’t want to do it poorly.

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.

Bad Boys, Bad Boys (ConCarolinas 2012 Notes)

Hi everyone! Look who's going for record of Longest Notes Delay? *innocent whistle*

Eh, I've said my piece. To say the least, I've been busy. Here, let's look at the less-than-golden boys of fiction, and what makes them tick.

* * *

Bad Boys, Bad Boys

James R. Tuck, Faith Hunter, Kalayna Price, Jim S. Bernheimer, William Hatfield, Dahlia Rose Moderator: Misty Massey

Spike, Mal Reynolds, Han Solo, Repairman Jack, Jack Sparrow, Jareth the goblin king, the man with no name – we like bad boys. But what constitutes a bad boy?
JT: The guy willing to do what it takes regardless of the consequences.
FH: And women like him.
JT: The roughness tended with a good heart.
FH: Even with Spike, there’s something good that’s under that evil exterior. The guy who gets the job done, whatever the job may be. Not ready to settle down.
KP: Can be bad guy, villain, love interest...
JB: A scoundrel, a rogue, stays true to himself, doesn’t spin on a dime – The journey from bad boy to something other than bad boy is not overnight, and has setbacks, if you’re going to redeem him.
WH: Has a too good to be true boy who’s going evil over the course of his series
KP: The bad boy doesn’t necessarily need to be redeemed. E.g. Jack Reacher.
DR: The heroine has to feel she can fix/redeem him. She has to feel part of the solution, not the problem.
KP: The bad boy doesn’t have to have a love interest. But often they’ve had someone they’ve lost or who was killed to push them into the bad boy role.

What’s the difference between a bad boy and a villain?
DR: The bad boy is the guy with a conscience. The villain will do it and say "F it, I’m done". Even if the villain has a love interest, he’s still just looking out for himself.
WH: The bad guys are going for personal gain and that’s it. The bad boy has a conscience but he’s able to successfully bury it most of the time, but every so often Pandora’s box opens.
JB: John Cusak – Grosse Point Blank – he’s an assassin,and no one believes him until he’s actually caught doing it. Minnie Driver saw him as somewhat fixable.  Dan Ackroyd is just after a paycheck.
KP: The bad boy is sexy. Doesn’t mean he’ll get the girl, but he can attract her.
MM: Han Solo – attitude mixed with sexiness.
FH: Fun to write bad boys who cross the line sometimes into villain and back again. Also, bad boys who are led to test the limits of their success.
JT: The difference is cruelty for cruelty’s sake (villain). The bad boy has a nobility streak, however rough. Even if he’s the meanest person in the book there’s still something deep inside. Evil is a matter of intent.

Aud: The bad boy still has his own code of honour, reason for doing something bad
KP: Even villains still must have a code, however messed up it is.

Is there a difference between the bad boy and the antihero?
MM: Antihero is  more damaged, has a lot more to lose or has already lost what there is to lose. Mal and Han still have somewhere to go; Batman has lost everything.
JB: The antihero doesn’t see himself as a villain or antihero. He's doing things for their own reasons and he believes those reasons to be just.

Can a villain backslide to antihero, and backslide to bad boy? E.g. Farscape – sounds like a  bad writing decision. It has to be logical to the reader. Characters have to progress in a logical fashion.
FH: Still have to make the characters behave.
JT: That’s a cycle of redemption. Must have a catalyst for that, a character to help them redeem themselves.

Bad boys vs. Bad girls?
DR: Writes strong women who can match a bad boy. (pass)
WH: Has not written a bad boy. (pass)
JB: (pass)
KP: We have strong women, we have bad women, we have heroines, but not really many bad girls.
MM: It’s a cultural issue. Bad boys = more violence; Bad girls = more sex.

Audience question: How many tormented male characters have been built on the backs of broken women? (eg. Murdered wife, etc)
Bad boys – recklessness, wild; military men have generally chosen their path, not necessarily reckless wild etc.
Military – badass, but not bad boys. Very family-oriented. Usually working towards going home to their families. They want to see their children and save their family. They get home and the curtain falls away and they become family men.

Who is your favorite bad boy?
JT: Mal Reynolds. Nathan Fillion is charming.
FH: Jack Reacher.
MM: Clint Eastwood – The man with no name.
KP: Jareth the Goblin King.
JB: CT Westcott – Will T. Bucko
WH: The road warrior. But Vlad Totosh.
DR: Eric in TrueBlood

Comics: Uncorruptable and Irredeemable – Mark Wade
Watchmen – all of them are bad boys or villains (except for Night Owl)
Lilith St. Crow – Jill Kismet (bad girl)

Women can be badass, too, not just a dude with breasts.

For all of us who are writers – we need more kickass women, we need to change the culture, change the paradigm.

What is the bad boy trope?
Sexy, attitude, reckless, with nobility/their own code.
JB: These days, we could have a bad boy metrosexual.