Friday, February 8, 2008
"Don't Doubt It"
"Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might win, by fearing to attempt. "~ William Shakespeare
As pirates, we face traitors in everyday battle. We overcome them, force them to walk the plank, then we smile as we glance over the ship’s rail to see them washed away by the forceful current of the ocean tide.
Many times in my life, I’ve attempted to remove failure from my vocabulary. I’ve seen people use the term failure to measure a person’s worth, and to me that is so wrong. Can you really call a person a failure until you’ve walked in their shoes?
As writers, we allow doubt to seep into our minds, and begin to question if we will ever succeed. Doubt can sneak up on you when you least expect it, tearing down aspirations and the confidence you have for your WIP. It explains why one day you feel you’ve written the best 5K you’ve ever produced and the next day you have no idea what you were thinking. The most confident writer has doubts; they have moments when they question their ability. It’s normal, we all do.
How you deal with doubt defines your progress.
The answer to doubt is as simple as the universal answer to most obstacles writers face. You continue to write, and then you write some more. I face all difficult tasks in my life in the same manner. I measure the difficulty of the task, and then I question my ability. Before I ever attempted to write a book, I asked myself why I should even try. The answer is because I enjoy writing and I have nothing to lose by trying. If I don’t publish, I still have the experience of the journey. No matter how successful I become I will always be a writer. Writing has become as much a part of me as my personality.
I don’t view a writer as a failure because of the inability to publish. It’s measured by how we choose to perfect our craft. We set ourselves up for failure if we never take our peer’s advice, never learn from our mistakes and instead make excuses for every criticism voiced about our work. There are so many resources available for writers; we have no excuse for not having a grasp on our profession. If you research long enough you will find the answers. If you ask questions often enough you will become empowered. If you write long enough you will hit your stride. If you network and make yourself visible, you will become a familiar name. If you visit a scene where your WIP takes place then you write it honestly. If you believe in the story you want to tell then you will strive harder to get it told.
Shakespeare had a beautiful point; treat the doubts in your mind as traitors. Why not use the negative as a positive? Write your doubts into a corner, and then every time you glance at that corner use them to fuel your desire for success.
How do you view failure? Do you base it on the inability to publish, or what you fail to learn on the journey? How do you keep doubts at bay when you become discouraged about your WIP? Who views doubt as an internal mechanism for alerting us that we’ve veered off course?
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Voice Lessons – Part Two
Movie directors and screenwriters have it easier than straight out novelists. (At least I think so and it’s my blog so what I say goes. Pirate.) I think they have it easier than us because they can rely on visuals. Within seconds of the credits rolling and the music starting, the tone of a movie is set. The colors they use, the angles they come from, and the actions of the characters as well as the script all play a part in “setting the scene.”
When you’re a novelist, you only have the words you write. “Only!” I hear some of you wenches gasping. Well, yes, only. Think of all the visual weapons in a screen director’s arsenal. And what do we have? Words.
Yet, I constantly hear from moviegoers, “that wasn’t as good as the book.” How, if a director can make us see everything, can’t they make a movie better than a book?
A good novelist creates something that lives inside someone else’s head. That’s a tall task. When a reader picks up a book, they want to fall into the world that author has created. They want that world, those characters, to live inside their head for the few hours it will take them to reach the end.
So, how do we set that scene? What do we do to make that scene, the setting, the book, alive for that reader? I say it starts with the tone we use and, ultimately, with our voice.
But, what, beyond lots and lots of practice, attributes to our voice?
Yesterday, Sin talked about how we write emotion and I thought that really got at the heart of voice. As I mentioned in the comments (if you haven’t read them, you should, as always the wenches who visit the boat leave brilliant insight) I don’t do dark well. In addition to that, I don’t do a lot of melodrama well. In fact, I would say for the most part, I’m pretty light. But, I don’t think light has to mean light on substance.
So, my WIP is a not dark, non-melodramatic, light but substantial read. In fact, those adjectives tell you nothing concrete about my writing style.
How am I “not dark?” How do I avoid melodrama? What makes me substantial but light?
These questions got me thinking about the specifics of creating voice. Apparently we all have to “find” our voice. How many times do we hear that advice as fledgling authors? Keep writing, I hear, you’ll figure it out, they say. And, I agree. The more I write, the more clarity I have about this.
But, that doesn’t help you. So, today, I want to talk about some of the specifics. How do we create voice? My first example is this: I know that my dialogue is very light because my characters banter. It’s quick and at times silly. My characters twist each other’s words and bicker the way that attorneys do; with a one-up the other goal in mind and practically no malice. When they talk, the tones of their conversation hold the power-struggle I see between defensive parties. It makes for tension, but without the darkness. Or, so I think.
What about you? What specific things do you do that contribute to your voice?
When you’re a novelist, you only have the words you write. “Only!” I hear some of you wenches gasping. Well, yes, only. Think of all the visual weapons in a screen director’s arsenal. And what do we have? Words.
Yet, I constantly hear from moviegoers, “that wasn’t as good as the book.” How, if a director can make us see everything, can’t they make a movie better than a book?
A good novelist creates something that lives inside someone else’s head. That’s a tall task. When a reader picks up a book, they want to fall into the world that author has created. They want that world, those characters, to live inside their head for the few hours it will take them to reach the end.
So, how do we set that scene? What do we do to make that scene, the setting, the book, alive for that reader? I say it starts with the tone we use and, ultimately, with our voice.
But, what, beyond lots and lots of practice, attributes to our voice?
Yesterday, Sin talked about how we write emotion and I thought that really got at the heart of voice. As I mentioned in the comments (if you haven’t read them, you should, as always the wenches who visit the boat leave brilliant insight) I don’t do dark well. In addition to that, I don’t do a lot of melodrama well. In fact, I would say for the most part, I’m pretty light. But, I don’t think light has to mean light on substance.
So, my WIP is a not dark, non-melodramatic, light but substantial read. In fact, those adjectives tell you nothing concrete about my writing style.
How am I “not dark?” How do I avoid melodrama? What makes me substantial but light?
These questions got me thinking about the specifics of creating voice. Apparently we all have to “find” our voice. How many times do we hear that advice as fledgling authors? Keep writing, I hear, you’ll figure it out, they say. And, I agree. The more I write, the more clarity I have about this.
But, that doesn’t help you. So, today, I want to talk about some of the specifics. How do we create voice? My first example is this: I know that my dialogue is very light because my characters banter. It’s quick and at times silly. My characters twist each other’s words and bicker the way that attorneys do; with a one-up the other goal in mind and practically no malice. When they talk, the tones of their conversation hold the power-struggle I see between defensive parties. It makes for tension, but without the darkness. Or, so I think.
What about you? What specific things do you do that contribute to your voice?
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Shot Through the Heart
There’s something about emotion that can weigh a character down. A feeling like the weight of the world is carried on their shoulders. The feeling of guilt. The feeling of devastation. Hopelessness. Regret. A lot of regret. It takes a lot for a character to leave that feeling behind. And it takes a strong writer to help them achieve it.
It’s the journey that makes the ending all the more enjoyable.
In every story there is an internal conflict that the character must go through to show the reader, convince them that his/her will is strong. The he/she can grow from mistakes. Learn. Move on. But what does it take out of the writer to convey that? We all tend to live through our words. Moving our characters in and out of a world that we’ve created, situations that we’ve placed them in. We give them life. We give them heartache. We give them strength to put one foot in front of the other. But when it comes down to the real emotion, the type of stuff that make a reader’s heart stop, the tears, the moment of truth, does it really come from your own experiences and drag the character through the mud? Or do you play it off, skirting around the issue, resolving it with as little drama as possible?
When I write emotion, I write how I feel. I think of the situation. I think of how I would react. How someone else would react. I see it as a play in my mind and I’m the director. Even if I’ve never experienced it before, my imagination takes it away for me. I can’t say I’ve ever seen blood pouring out of a body before (besides my own). I can’t say that I’ve had a sister been brutally murdered. Or been a FBI agent. Or even drove Porsche. But it only takes a visual image and a really good imagination to get you through it.
After following a brilliant blog by Colleen Gleason yesterday about research, and comments made about the emotion and plot weaving and what it takes to write those characters, I thought about what it takes to be a great writer. What draws your reader into your stories and keeps you coming back for more. And I think it’s the emotion the writer puts into the characters. The heart. The research. You have to feel like you’re a part of the story. To be absorbed by the world. To experience the internal dialogue. To have that moment of utter despair and hopelessness in the black moment like your world is crushing down around you. Suck them into that world and make them come back for more. Make them see it. Make them feel it. That’s the mark of a truly great writer.
So my blog is short today (and probably not sweet, lol) and really there is only one question on my mind. How do you write emotion? I know we talked about our moods bleeding into our words in the comments a few days ago, but do you roll with it when it happens? Or do you distance yourself from your own emotions and separate your heroine/heroes emotions from ones that you would normally have? If you’re a reader, what do you prefer? Do you prefer that deep emotional connection or do you prefer light and fluffy?
It’s the journey that makes the ending all the more enjoyable.
In every story there is an internal conflict that the character must go through to show the reader, convince them that his/her will is strong. The he/she can grow from mistakes. Learn. Move on. But what does it take out of the writer to convey that? We all tend to live through our words. Moving our characters in and out of a world that we’ve created, situations that we’ve placed them in. We give them life. We give them heartache. We give them strength to put one foot in front of the other. But when it comes down to the real emotion, the type of stuff that make a reader’s heart stop, the tears, the moment of truth, does it really come from your own experiences and drag the character through the mud? Or do you play it off, skirting around the issue, resolving it with as little drama as possible?
When I write emotion, I write how I feel. I think of the situation. I think of how I would react. How someone else would react. I see it as a play in my mind and I’m the director. Even if I’ve never experienced it before, my imagination takes it away for me. I can’t say I’ve ever seen blood pouring out of a body before (besides my own). I can’t say that I’ve had a sister been brutally murdered. Or been a FBI agent. Or even drove Porsche. But it only takes a visual image and a really good imagination to get you through it.
After following a brilliant blog by Colleen Gleason yesterday about research, and comments made about the emotion and plot weaving and what it takes to write those characters, I thought about what it takes to be a great writer. What draws your reader into your stories and keeps you coming back for more. And I think it’s the emotion the writer puts into the characters. The heart. The research. You have to feel like you’re a part of the story. To be absorbed by the world. To experience the internal dialogue. To have that moment of utter despair and hopelessness in the black moment like your world is crushing down around you. Suck them into that world and make them come back for more. Make them see it. Make them feel it. That’s the mark of a truly great writer.
So my blog is short today (and probably not sweet, lol) and really there is only one question on my mind. How do you write emotion? I know we talked about our moods bleeding into our words in the comments a few days ago, but do you roll with it when it happens? Or do you distance yourself from your own emotions and separate your heroine/heroes emotions from ones that you would normally have? If you’re a reader, what do you prefer? Do you prefer that deep emotional connection or do you prefer light and fluffy?
Monday, February 4, 2008
Colleen Gleason: Putting Truth Into Your Fiction and Other Challenges in Writing Paranormal Historicals
Pirates, please help me in welcoming Colleen Gleason to the ship! *hearty cheers*
Colleen, as if you didn't know, is a fellow pirate who traverses the salty seas, writing about vampires, if you can believe it. *superstitious routine done by crew members where they cross themselves in protection against vampires*
Captain Colleen has published three books in the Gardella Vampire Chronicles, and her newest release, The Bleeding Dusk, hits the shelves today! (She even has a rave review from J.R. Ward!): "Sophisticated, sexy, surprising. With its Regency graces and vampire lore, this book grabs you and holds you tight until the very last page!"
I love writing paranormal historicals.
One reason I like the historical setting is that it gives the heroine (and other characters) a different set of restrictions than they have in today’s world. It makes it more challenging for them—and for me.
Such as? Well, obviously, no cell phones, no texting, no Internet and email. Makes communication that much more difficult, and it makes it easier for things like swapping or taking on new identities. It also allows me to build in more tension because, again, it’s harder to get places, to contact people, to find out things.
And then there’s the whole fashion aspect. While, I admit, there are times when I wish I could put my Victoria Gardella Grantworth into some serious CFM boots, or a glittery cocktail dress, or Max into a leather duster, or Sebastian into some tight suede jeans…I also get to use the styles of dress at that time to my advantage.
It’s a lot harder for a young woman attending a Society ball to find a place to hide her stake than it was for Buffy, who just slipped it up her sleeve. I’ve had to get creative with my heroine and find ways for her to secret weapons on her person, and even to have to change in the carriage and need help from someone to unlace her corset! Fun, fun, fun.
Another reason I love writing historical paranormals is because I get to play with history. I get to take events that actually happened and give them a paranormal twist or otherworldly explanation.
For example, when I was researching the second book in the Gardella Vampire Chronicles, Rises the Night, I learned that John Polidori, the author of The Vampyre, died a somewhat mysterious death. There were differing explanations as to why/how he’d died. Well, heck, I thought...I’m certain it had to do with his exposing vampire secrets in his book The Vampyre, and they came after
him for revenge.
And voila! I had a plot twist that I was able to build upon.
I also learned that secret societies like the Carbonari were very common in Italy at the time, and so I figured there had to be a secret society of vampire protectors that also existed—and thus I created The Tutela, which is just that: a society that protects and serves the undead, and appear in my books.
For my third Gardella book, I wanted to base part of the plot around something in Rome. I kept Googling things like “Rome 19th century legend” “Rome 18th century secret” “Rome myth” “Rome legend.” And while I got a lot of things about Remus and Romulus, I also found out about The Door of Alchemy (La Porta Alchemica), which is a real door that still exists today, and is described in my book The Bleeding Dusk.
In fact, because it was so fascinating, I used that door as the main focal point of the suspense plot in the book. And to think I found it quite by accident! That’s the beauty of writing paranormal historicals, and the fun stuff that research can uncover.
One more, then I’ll stop and take questions….when I was working on the fourth Gardella Vampire Chronicles book, When Twilight Burns (coming in August), I found out that during the time the book was set the former Prince Regent of England was crowned king, and that the coronation was a huge, elaborate, expensive affair…and that he refused to let his estranged wife, Queen Caroline, enter Westminster Abbey for the coronation.
I had to use that tidbit in my book, and I knew just how to build that paranormal aspect around it!
I want to thank Fran for having me and for dressing up the place so nicely—that Writer’s Angel is extremely inspiring. I’d love to borrow him.
I’d love to take questions from anyone about the books, the series, the research process, etc.—so lay’em on me! Oh, and ARGH!!!
Hellion, again: Colleen is not only a kick-ass pirate, but she's a kick-ass pirate with booty! One lucky commenter will win one of Colleen's books--winner's choice. (Can't get any better booty than that.) So please stop and ask your most pressing questions about research, the series--and most importantly: is Sebastian a sort of Professor Snape character? And when do we get to see more of him?
Colleen, as if you didn't know, is a fellow pirate who traverses the salty seas, writing about vampires, if you can believe it. *superstitious routine done by crew members where they cross themselves in protection against vampires*
Captain Colleen has published three books in the Gardella Vampire Chronicles, and her newest release, The Bleeding Dusk, hits the shelves today! (She even has a rave review from J.R. Ward!): "Sophisticated, sexy, surprising. With its Regency graces and vampire lore, this book grabs you and holds you tight until the very last page!"
I love writing paranormal historicals.
One reason I like the historical setting is that it gives the heroine (and other characters) a different set of restrictions than they have in today’s world. It makes it more challenging for them—and for me.
Such as? Well, obviously, no cell phones, no texting, no Internet and email. Makes communication that much more difficult, and it makes it easier for things like swapping or taking on new identities. It also allows me to build in more tension because, again, it’s harder to get places, to contact people, to find out things.
And then there’s the whole fashion aspect. While, I admit, there are times when I wish I could put my Victoria Gardella Grantworth into some serious CFM boots, or a glittery cocktail dress, or Max into a leather duster, or Sebastian into some tight suede jeans…I also get to use the styles of dress at that time to my advantage.
It’s a lot harder for a young woman attending a Society ball to find a place to hide her stake than it was for Buffy, who just slipped it up her sleeve. I’ve had to get creative with my heroine and find ways for her to secret weapons on her person, and even to have to change in the carriage and need help from someone to unlace her corset! Fun, fun, fun.
Another reason I love writing historical paranormals is because I get to play with history. I get to take events that actually happened and give them a paranormal twist or otherworldly explanation.
For example, when I was researching the second book in the Gardella Vampire Chronicles, Rises the Night, I learned that John Polidori, the author of The Vampyre, died a somewhat mysterious death. There were differing explanations as to why/how he’d died. Well, heck, I thought...I’m certain it had to do with his exposing vampire secrets in his book The Vampyre, and they came after
him for revenge.And voila! I had a plot twist that I was able to build upon.
I also learned that secret societies like the Carbonari were very common in Italy at the time, and so I figured there had to be a secret society of vampire protectors that also existed—and thus I created The Tutela, which is just that: a society that protects and serves the undead, and appear in my books.
For my third Gardella book, I wanted to base part of the plot around something in Rome. I kept Googling things like “Rome 19th century legend” “Rome 18th century secret” “Rome myth” “Rome legend.” And while I got a lot of things about Remus and Romulus, I also found out about The Door of Alchemy (La Porta Alchemica), which is a real door that still exists today, and is described in my book The Bleeding Dusk.
In fact, because it was so fascinating, I used that door as the main focal point of the suspense plot in the book. And to think I found it quite by accident! That’s the beauty of writing paranormal historicals, and the fun stuff that research can uncover.
One more, then I’ll stop and take questions….when I was working on the fourth Gardella Vampire Chronicles book, When Twilight Burns (coming in August), I found out that during the time the book was set the former Prince Regent of England was crowned king, and that the coronation was a huge, elaborate, expensive affair…and that he refused to let his estranged wife, Queen Caroline, enter Westminster Abbey for the coronation.
I had to use that tidbit in my book, and I knew just how to build that paranormal aspect around it!
I want to thank Fran for having me and for dressing up the place so nicely—that Writer’s Angel is extremely inspiring. I’d love to borrow him.
I’d love to take questions from anyone about the books, the series, the research process, etc.—so lay’em on me! Oh, and ARGH!!!
Hellion, again: Colleen is not only a kick-ass pirate, but she's a kick-ass pirate with booty! One lucky commenter will win one of Colleen's books--winner's choice. (Can't get any better booty than that.) So please stop and ask your most pressing questions about research, the series--and most importantly: is Sebastian a sort of Professor Snape character? And when do we get to see more of him?
Sunday, February 3, 2008
A Piratical Debate – Why we will never have Universal Funny
Many conversations take place behind the scenes here on the Romance Writer's Revenge. One of those exchanges led to today's debate. Why sometimes funny is not funny to all.
Captain Hellion's opening statement:
It is said that writing tragedy is easy, but writing comedy is hard. Why is that? Why is it easy for us to agree that death of a loved one or puppies murdered for their fur or [SPOILER ALERT!] Will Turner being cursed as the Flying Dutchman's captain and only seeing Elizabeth once every ten years are all tragic, but humor, that which gets us through all the heartbreak, is subjective?
Boatswain Terrio's opening statement:
I think the reason tragedy is universal is because it hits the heart. A fickle, soft organ that most everyone owns but no one controls. Though it recovers it is completely susceptible to the slightest tale of sadness, loss or pain. Humor, however, aims for the funny bone. A much tougher nut to crack. The funny bone is not fickle but rather choosy and might I say persnickety. Which is why humor is subjective.
Captain Hellion:
Last summer, I went to Virginia and met my virtual-friend Terri. Though we hailed from different backgrounds and different childhoods, we were alike in a lot of ways. Hell, we even photographed the same: unhappy with the outcome, but faintly sunburned from all the fun we were having. Now Terri and I laugh at a lot of the same things, except I adore Will Ferrell and she has absolutely no taste where he is concerned. Now it's easy to love Jon Stewart and that Colbert guy—the brainy, sarcastic grown-up geek who has filled out from his pasty-white, lanky-thin days and has proved once and for all to his high school graduating class that: Sure you may have stuffed me in a locker repeatedly, but who's laughing now?
Boatswain Terrio:
Ah, last year's vacation. Good times. Good times. And speaking of pictures, have you gotten yours developed yet? Hmmmm? And I have to say I am a real person - not just virtual. LOL! Though I bet if I were virtual I would weigh virtually nothing. Yes, lets say I'm virtual. Now, I must argue that it is not a matter of having no taste but rather Will Ferrell not being to my taste. I never even realized that I had never seen a Will Ferrell movie until we started talking about it. It wasn't a conscious avoidance. More the result of me avoiding things I don't find funny. I do like Jon Stewart because his humor is laced with a touch of truth and intelligence. For me there is a fine line between being silly and being stupid. In most cases, for me, Ferrell obliterates that line.
Captain Hellion:
The difference between a comedian like Will Ferrell and one like Jon Stewart is like the difference between going on a date with Adam Sandler verses a date with Dennis Miller. With Adam, he'd make you feel okay about spilling spaghetti down your blouse by offering to suck the spaghetti strands out of your cleavage with his straw. Dennis would probably offer you the history of pasta that would amuse you, but then remind you that hey, the Romans had a democracy—and they were also Republican. While you would be laughing your ass off at Adam's antics, wondering who the hell sucks spaghetti though a straw; with Dennis you'd point out just like the Romans, American Republicans are also equally corrupt and prone to stabbing each other in the back. Et tu, McCain?
Boatswain Terrio:
Again I must argue. I would never go on a date with Dennis Miller. Have you seen the man's hands? Way too small. And he may not cross the line into stupid but he's more condescending and pretentious than I could possibly bear. This is about the humor, not the men.
Captain Hellion:
The problem with being the guy who was stuffed in the locker all the time is that even your humor is serious. You spend a lot of your time mocking and satirizing the world around you, which admittedly is funny (if you can't laugh at yourself, who can you laugh at?), but there's
an edge to it. It's not laughing for laughter's sake. It's not as carefree; it's not as childlike. And if there's one thing Will Ferrell is: he's a great big child.
Boatswain Terrio:
Hence the problem for me. I'm not interested in laughing for laughter's sake or watching anything childish. And I do use that word opposed to childlike since I think it fits Mr. Ferrell much better. Maybe my problem is that I don't find the ridiculous funny. I want there to be a point to the joke. I want it to be funny because it's true. I prefer irony or a twist of words.
Captain Hellion:
And then you have: Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby. Not a serious moment to be found, and certainly no hidden moral agenda. Just stupid catchphrases and tasteless sequences that leave you laughing, appalled, in your chair. Even Will's commercially serious comedy:
Stranger Than Fiction, was more sweet and funny, in the manner of Elf, than painfully pretentious. Maybe it's the short blonde curls and the wide innocent expression Will does so well. After all, he would embrace any obnoxious role on Saturday Night Live and do it so deadpan, he'd keep in character even while every other skit-mate was falling apart around him. Why do I love Will Ferrell? His ability to deliver lines like: "Dear tiny, infant Jesus, lying in his tiny golden fleece…" and "Smiling's my favorite" and "I work for the IRS, everyone hates me" with equal deadpan sincerity. Will is sincere, and he's sincerely funny. That's all.
Boatswain Terrio:
Ah, THAT movie. That is the worst to me. And yes, I'm a NASCAR fan and that might cloud my judgment but it's precisely lines like those I do not find amusing. The ability to deadpan only works for me if the punch line is actually funny. To be fair, I don't like Ben Stiller movies either or much of the humor Owen Wilson does. At least when he does movies with Stiller.
The bottom line here is not whether Will Ferrell is funny. It's that what IS funny is not universal. Which means how do you know if what you've written is funny? Many books, no matter how serious, have some sort of comic relief. But what if what we write as relief is not funny to the reader? We can be sure that when we break our heroine's heart, our readers will feel the pain. When our hero cries, our reader's will cry. But will they laugh when our hero steps on our heroine's foot sending her into curses and name calling? Or when our heroine's father walks in to catch his daughter in a most *compromising* position?
I put the question to you. What do you find funny? Do you prefer Will Ferrell or Jon Stewart? Is it high brow stuff for you or maybe slapstick and the ridiculous? Or do you prefer no humor at all in your books? If that's the case, then I apologize for the drivel of today's blog. *g*
Captain Hellion's opening statement:
It is said that writing tragedy is easy, but writing comedy is hard. Why is that? Why is it easy for us to agree that death of a loved one or puppies murdered for their fur or [SPOILER ALERT!] Will Turner being cursed as the Flying Dutchman's captain and only seeing Elizabeth once every ten years are all tragic, but humor, that which gets us through all the heartbreak, is subjective?
Boatswain Terrio's opening statement:
I think the reason tragedy is universal is because it hits the heart. A fickle, soft organ that most everyone owns but no one controls. Though it recovers it is completely susceptible to the slightest tale of sadness, loss or pain. Humor, however, aims for the funny bone. A much tougher nut to crack. The funny bone is not fickle but rather choosy and might I say persnickety. Which is why humor is subjective.
Captain Hellion:
Last summer, I went to Virginia and met my virtual-friend Terri. Though we hailed from different backgrounds and different childhoods, we were alike in a lot of ways. Hell, we even photographed the same: unhappy with the outcome, but faintly sunburned from all the fun we were having. Now Terri and I laugh at a lot of the same things, except I adore Will Ferrell and she has absolutely no taste where he is concerned. Now it's easy to love Jon Stewart and that Colbert guy—the brainy, sarcastic grown-up geek who has filled out from his pasty-white, lanky-thin days and has proved once and for all to his high school graduating class that: Sure you may have stuffed me in a locker repeatedly, but who's laughing now?
Boatswain Terrio:
Ah, last year's vacation. Good times. Good times. And speaking of pictures, have you gotten yours developed yet? Hmmmm? And I have to say I am a real person - not just virtual. LOL! Though I bet if I were virtual I would weigh virtually nothing. Yes, lets say I'm virtual. Now, I must argue that it is not a matter of having no taste but rather Will Ferrell not being to my taste. I never even realized that I had never seen a Will Ferrell movie until we started talking about it. It wasn't a conscious avoidance. More the result of me avoiding things I don't find funny. I do like Jon Stewart because his humor is laced with a touch of truth and intelligence. For me there is a fine line between being silly and being stupid. In most cases, for me, Ferrell obliterates that line.
Captain Hellion:
The difference between a comedian like Will Ferrell and one like Jon Stewart is like the difference between going on a date with Adam Sandler verses a date with Dennis Miller. With Adam, he'd make you feel okay about spilling spaghetti down your blouse by offering to suck the spaghetti strands out of your cleavage with his straw. Dennis would probably offer you the history of pasta that would amuse you, but then remind you that hey, the Romans had a democracy—and they were also Republican. While you would be laughing your ass off at Adam's antics, wondering who the hell sucks spaghetti though a straw; with Dennis you'd point out just like the Romans, American Republicans are also equally corrupt and prone to stabbing each other in the back. Et tu, McCain?
Boatswain Terrio:
Again I must argue. I would never go on a date with Dennis Miller. Have you seen the man's hands? Way too small. And he may not cross the line into stupid but he's more condescending and pretentious than I could possibly bear. This is about the humor, not the men.
Captain Hellion:
The problem with being the guy who was stuffed in the locker all the time is that even your humor is serious. You spend a lot of your time mocking and satirizing the world around you, which admittedly is funny (if you can't laugh at yourself, who can you laugh at?), but there's
an edge to it. It's not laughing for laughter's sake. It's not as carefree; it's not as childlike. And if there's one thing Will Ferrell is: he's a great big child.
Boatswain Terrio:
Hence the problem for me. I'm not interested in laughing for laughter's sake or watching anything childish. And I do use that word opposed to childlike since I think it fits Mr. Ferrell much better. Maybe my problem is that I don't find the ridiculous funny. I want there to be a point to the joke. I want it to be funny because it's true. I prefer irony or a twist of words.
Captain Hellion:
And then you have: Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby. Not a serious moment to be found, and certainly no hidden moral agenda. Just stupid catchphrases and tasteless sequences that leave you laughing, appalled, in your chair. Even Will's commercially serious comedy:
Stranger Than Fiction, was more sweet and funny, in the manner of Elf, than painfully pretentious. Maybe it's the short blonde curls and the wide innocent expression Will does so well. After all, he would embrace any obnoxious role on Saturday Night Live and do it so deadpan, he'd keep in character even while every other skit-mate was falling apart around him. Why do I love Will Ferrell? His ability to deliver lines like: "Dear tiny, infant Jesus, lying in his tiny golden fleece…" and "Smiling's my favorite" and "I work for the IRS, everyone hates me" with equal deadpan sincerity. Will is sincere, and he's sincerely funny. That's all.
Boatswain Terrio:
Ah, THAT movie. That is the worst to me. And yes, I'm a NASCAR fan and that might cloud my judgment but it's precisely lines like those I do not find amusing. The ability to deadpan only works for me if the punch line is actually funny. To be fair, I don't like Ben Stiller movies either or much of the humor Owen Wilson does. At least when he does movies with Stiller.
The bottom line here is not whether Will Ferrell is funny. It's that what IS funny is not universal. Which means how do you know if what you've written is funny? Many books, no matter how serious, have some sort of comic relief. But what if what we write as relief is not funny to the reader? We can be sure that when we break our heroine's heart, our readers will feel the pain. When our hero cries, our reader's will cry. But will they laugh when our hero steps on our heroine's foot sending her into curses and name calling? Or when our heroine's father walks in to catch his daughter in a most *compromising* position?
I put the question to you. What do you find funny? Do you prefer Will Ferrell or Jon Stewart? Is it high brow stuff for you or maybe slapstick and the ridiculous? Or do you prefer no humor at all in your books? If that's the case, then I apologize for the drivel of today's blog. *g*
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Hottie Crew Member of the Week - A Gift From the Heavens
There is this bumper sticker that I just love. "Never drive faster than your guardian angel can fly." It's the Catholic schoolgirl in me but I have always believed in angels, especially the guardian type. And let me tell you, mine has more than earned her pay. In fact, I'm sure she's earned a really cushy cloud by now.
With this saying in mind, I thought the Romance Writer's Revenge needed our own guardian angel. And I give to you……Ecanus.
With this saying in mind, I thought the Romance Writer's Revenge needed our own guardian angel. And I give to you……Ecanus.
Now, I know what you're thinking. Not the sexiest name. But Ecanus is the Angel of Writers. No shit. I looked it up. Ecanus " Inspires them with original thoughts and ensures they see their works through to completion." Do we need Ecanus on this ship or what?!
Oh, and if you happen to have lascivious thoughts about Ecanus, that's perfectly alright. After all, he spends all his time with us. He's totally used to it by now. *g* And I keep hiding that damn towel but he keeps finding it again…
Guest Blogger Reminder
Don't forget to stop by the ship this Tuesday, February 5, to visit with Colleen Gleason, author of the Gardella Vampire Chronicles. Colleen will be joining us to celebrate the release of the newest book in the series, The Bleeding Dusk. Who can resist a Regency version of Buffy the Vampire Slayer? The heroine of the series, Lady Victoria Gardella, is not your typical Regency Lady, and this is your chance to pick the mind of the incredible author who created her.
Join us for Vamps, Tramps (that's us) and lots and lots of rum. I know, rum doesn't rhyme. So sue me. LOL!
Friday, February 1, 2008
Voice Lessons
When I was pregnant with my son, I listened to a variety of music because I love music and I wanted him to share my passion. Parenting literature claims that if you expose a growing fetus to music they could possess artistic skills later in life. I have to say I am a believer in that philosophy. My son loves music, and all musical instruments. He loves to dance, and sing, and he shows promising musical talent. I’m not claiming to have cultivated a future American Idol, but I’ve provided the microphone, it’s up to him to develop his voice.
As writers, we cultivate things from the world around us to use as tools when we choose to write a story. The type of individuals we are, and sometimes want to be, helps to create our characters. We read books and absorb the style of our favorite authors, and then we decide with our own voice how to tell our story.
I’ve struggled with developing a plot for my WIP that doesn’t appear too clichéd. I don’t want to write a cookie cutter version of something that’s already been done. I learned from a brainstorming session that all plots have been done, but how I make it my own is with my personal writer’s voice. I’ve been too busy trying to formulate the plot for the next Great American Novel to see what has always been a given. We all use the same plot formula, but it’s up to us as writers to make it our own.
Mastering a writer’s voice is the same as a singer mastering their vocal range. It takes practice and a desire to perfect our craft.
Have you ever heard the old proverb The devil makes work for idle hands?
When my hands aren’t writing I find myself procrastinating. The longer I stay away from some form of writing the less confident I become, and the less productive I am when I do sit down to write. I have to think, live, and work like a writer in order to keep my voice.
A plotted outline is an idea; it doesn’t become a story until you breathe life into the words that unfold the plot. We can sketch characters all day, but you never truly do them justice until you bring them to life on the page. All of the pirates here at the ship could take the same plot and characters and write a story, but I guarantee one would not shadow another. It’s because we all possess our own individual voice. It follows the same pattern as the game of truth. I’m sure you played this game as a child. One individual whispers a phrase in the person’s ear beside him and the phrase is passed on down the line until the last person repeats what he just heard. It never matches the beginning phrase, because each individual hears the phrase and makes of it what they want.
Wouldn’t the literary word be dull if we all shared the same voice? Variety is the spice of life, and when it comes to writing for a living, perfecting your individual voice is the greatest investment of all.
Does your writer’s voice shine in characterization, description, plot, or all of the above? Have you discovered anything that improves your writing voice? Does anyone share my sudden urge to Karaoke?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Books by the Crew
