S.B. Stewart-Laing's Blog, page 33

Buccaneer Blogfest Interview: Rachel Hunter

 Rachel Hunter is the author of the Empyreal Fate fantasy series, as well as an essayist and poet. She blogs at Life Defined.


1) Why did you decide on epic fantasy as your genre? What drew you to fantasy in general?

Fantasy – a beautiful word against my lips! What could be more magical than transporting oneself into realms of the impossible – the enchanting? Since I could but only grasp onto the covers of a book, I have been reading to my heart’s content. Although I enjoy works spanning all genres, I have found that fantasy beckons my attention far above all. There’s something in the nature of the fantastical that draws me in; there’s something about the feel of alternate worlds and mystical planes that ensnares me. And this is why I’ve chosen fantasy as my own genre. I want to make others feel the way I do about words: to breathe in awe at their elusive connectedness – to marvel the fluid way in which they bind. It’s this internal delight that delivers life upon a sheet of parchment. And it is this feeling I wish to instill.

I wish to add a side note here, as I have also a penchant for poetry. ‘I dance with words,’ as some may say. As a poet, I have incorporated my fascination of speech within Empyreal Fate, thereby bringing to light the lofty language and mystical tongue of an epic world. Every sentence I wrote flowed through my head along with a beat, and I recounted my tale accordingly. Thus, I wish to share with all the beauty of words and the unique way in which they breathe.

2) What is your favourite part of the writing process? Least favourite?
I enjoy when the characters speak to me - when the Muse guides my fingers as they dance across the keyboard. What I like the least is the passage of Time. It seems there is never enough time to write everything one wants to say. If only someone would only invent a device to slow it down...
3) What is your biggest inspiration?
My biggest inspiration comes from reading the words of others - indeed! Books inspire me, as well as role-playing games, certain films, and walks through Nature. Simply listening to a pleasant song while hiking through a wood delivers a great source of inspiration as well. But most of all, I'd have to say reading takes the cake (or, pen, in this case).
4) What is your favourite way to procrastinate on writing?
As I said above, it would have to be reading. I could while away all the hours in a day losing myself in a book. It's both magical and intoxicating, really. You never know just where the words will take you... or when they will release you. I hope to capture the intrigue of readers in the same fashion with my own writing.

Blogging Goals

I started blogging partly because I was 'supposed to' in order to promote Forgotten Gods, and partly because I ramble. A lot.
When Margo Lerwill stopped writing on Urban Psychopomp, I was forced to stop commenting on her blog like crazy and get my own virtual platform to talk about writing.
The title of the blog actually comes from a post of the same name by fantasy author Elizabeth Bear, which managed to ignite an epic debate within the writer-blogger community. As I followed the drama, I was struck by the idea that we are perpetually writing characters whose experiences are outside our own, and in fact the concept of 'writing the other' deserved more than one post. So when it came time for me to set up my own blog, I decided to make this the focal theme.
As for my goals, it's partly a way to promote my fiction. But in all honesty, I see it more as a place to get people thinking, to push the comfort zones we all have but are often unaware of using as we write.

 Now, in keeping with the blogfest theme, I will leave you with some pirate-y factoids, courtesy of
Horrible Histories:

Ahoy, Bloggers!

Hi fellow Buccaneer Bloggers!

About Me: In 'real life', I'm a marine biologist, which is just as fun as it sounds, albeit less glamourous. At the risk of being banned from Writerdom, I like maths. In fact, I did my postgraduate degree in statistical modeling of marine ecosystems, which is much more fun than it sounds (seriously!). Now I work in Bonnie Scotland, planning wind farms. Back in the day, I worked on a research vessel, and then on an island in the Caribbean.
Otherwise, I am part Scottish and part Kali'na (indigenous Venezuelan). I'm an avid birdwatcher and like being outdoors in general (running, gardening, kayaking...). I love to cook. And I'm a very enthusiastic 'doggie parent' to my rescued greyhound, Jack.

About this blog: The blog is a collection of my thoughts on fiction, as both a reader and a writer. Also I talk about my books.

Social Media Links:
Website
Twitter
Goodreads

Writing the History's Evil Empires

"I can't help but notice that our caps...they've got skulls on them... Hans, are we the baddies?" 
--That Mitchell and Webb Look, on the Nazis 

Margo and I have both blogged about avoiding the one-dimensional Dark Overlord types, as they tend to wreck suspension of disbelief with their lack of credible motivations, outrageously misplaced governing priorities, and general over-the-top evilness. Unfortunately, reality does not care for anyone's sense of plausibility, and the world has sadly seen a number of too-bad-to-be-true Evil Empires and leaders who are just one wicked cackle short of comic-book villainy.

This can be challenging to historical fiction writers for several reasons. First, it's difficult to sound credible while detailing activities that sound like audition material for the Evil League of Evil, and the last thing you want is readers scoffing and rolling their eyes at all-too-real atrocities. Second, we are very used to the trend towards 'shades of grey' morality in fiction, where the villains get some sympathetic traits, and it's clear that both sides have a point (or are being equally stupid), which is hard to do when it's Team Killing Innocent People vs. Team Let's Not Kill Innocent People. Third, it's inherently disturbing, and will darken the tone of your work considerably.

I can't claim to offer perfect answers, but I can offer some techniques which worked for myself and my coauthor.

Resist the urge to make excuses. This crops up like crazy when the author has some attachment to the group that was being evil. See my post on explaining vs. excusing for more details. Resist the urge to humanise everyone. Sorry, flower children.When writing about real historical events, it is important to remember that in reality, some people Do Not Play Nicely With Others and no amount of hugging is going to make them not take joy in stomping on kittens if such is in their nature. Not everyone is redeemable or in possession of some hidden reserve of warm fuzzies*. Think about people off the front lines. These are the people who may sympathise with the Evil Empire out of fear, ignorance, misinformation, family loyalty, or grim pragmatism. Their motivations and inner lives can provide a much more nuanced examination of the Evil League of Evil wannabes due to their distance from (or ignorance of) the extent of the terror perpetrated by their government (or conversely, they may be victims themselves). Hold back. This sounds counter-intuitive, but there are several good reasons for paring down your depiction. First, give the reader a flood of horrors, and they will shut down, and possibly put aside the book. Second, if the horribleness sounds too twisted to be true, the reader may dismiss your work as heavy-handed propaganda and miss the historical facts. If any of you readers or writers have more thoughts on the topic, please share in the comments. 

*And you doubted my Scottish Presbyterian cred

Excuses, Excuses

 Excuses are one of those permanent features of human society—no one likes them, and everyone makes them at some time or another. This, unsurprisingly, turns up in fiction when one is writing a character with deep and damaging flaws, or simply some unfortunate opinions. We need to justify our attachment to these characters, and desire to make them sympathetic to the reader, and the result is excuses. There is a huge difference between explaining a character’s bad behaviour by showing why they believe their decisions are correct (or at least the best of a bad set of options) and excusing their behaviour by claiming their circumstances make the bad deed itself acceptable. It’s a common issue when one is discussing fiction written in another time period, and it can be surprisingly easy to get one tangled up in the other. I remember in one literature course pointing out the rampant racial issues in Jack London’s Tales of the Fish Patrol, and having someone say that it was written at a time where Chinese immigrants were popularly considered Always Chaotic Evil, so it was okay. I think—given the individual—that they intended to convey that London’s views were typical of his contemporaries, and his views would have been seen as normal by his readers. Applying the earlier distinction, this doesn’t make him not racist, or make the racism in the book okay, but it does explain its presence without indicating that London was an exceptionally bigoted individual compared to other people of his background.  It’s also a highly important distinction when one writes otherwise sympathetic characters with views modern society would consider yucky, but are normal for their world. The best route is to demonstrate that these views or behaviours are very much a product of this person’s environment, and they are only doing what they genuinely believe is right. In that instance, realism—and the associated problem issues—are still in play, but do not diminish the character’s status as someone with good intentions. 

Writing Antisocial Characters

In real life and in fiction, 'good' and 'nice' do not necessarily overlap. So it's perfectly acceptable-- sometimes even beneficial to your storyline-- to write a character who doesn't play nicely with others (or at the very least spends a good deal of time giving society the finger). The big risk, of course, is creating a 'Jerk Sue'-- in other words, a character who is beloved and indulged by those around them in spite of their objectively unpleasant behaviour.

How can one write an antisocial character who intrigues the reader instead of annoying them? There are many, many examples, but some common threads exist:

The character allows vicarious rebellion. Sure, they're a rulebreaker, but the rules they are breaking are stupid or oppressive, or they're breaking them for a good cause. We cheer for this character because they're our vehicle to experience the thrill of rebellious acts-- telling off our obnoxious coworker, sneaking out of class, etc.
The character has some redeeming emotional traits. Maybe the character loves animals, or cares deeply for their parents, or does a job which centres around helping others. Another layer could be that their prickly exterior is a defense mechanism, and not their 'true' personality. However this is developed, the character has kindness, a strong moral centre, or some other appealing trait to make up for their less endearing ones. There are some exceptions, such as sociopathic characters who hold our fascination out of curiosity and horror (think Hannibal Lecter), or characters whose outrageously horrible behaviour is played for dark comedy (think Seinfeld, or Southpark's Eric Cartman), but these characters work because we are expected not to sympathise with them.
They face consequences for jerkass behaviour. Like most 'higher' mammals, Homo sapians have an acute sense of fairness. Furthermore, even if we sympathise with the character (and maybe even their questionable actions), having them get away with everything strains suspension of disbelief to the breaking point. Even if the character is protected from certain punishments due to some special circumstances-- critical job skills, diplomatic immunity, wads of cash-- there need to be consequences, such as resentment from others.

Functional Flat Characters

 I’m a big fan of character development. In my opinion, it’s the best way to get the audience drawn into the story—if you’re emotionally invested in a compelling character, their conflicts become important (and conversely, audiences will bail on complex plots if the characters are dull or off-putting). And I'm not the only one. Pretty much any source of writing advice will tell you to make sure your characters are complex and developed, and to avoid the dreaded 'flat character'. That said, you do not have to develop every single character equally. One of the big factors is audience expectations and attention. Readers are alert for details of character development which hint that this seemingly innocuous person or unicorn or Vulcan is actually an important player. Give all your minor characters a lot of backstory and the readers will get frustrated by the overload. If a character is really just a bit part—the annoying bureaucrat who’s keeping the protagonist from bringing a critical parcel through customs, the jolly bartender who innocently passes on plot-critical information, or the snooping little kid who is the ‘spanner in the works’ and reveals the protagonist’s hiding place—it’s okay to write in a one-note person. It signals to the reader that we won’t be seeing them again. On a note of caution, however, it’s important not to have the bit part character’s existence revolve around the protagonist. By that, I mean that they should have their own motivations, however simple, and not exist to shill the protagonist or sacrifice their life after knowing said protagonist for five minutes. Sure, they're on the reader's radar because they're interacting with the main character, but that doesn't mean they should be the same in-universe. Let them walk on, intersect with the heroes, and get back to their own lives. 

Emotional Priorities

Different people have different emotional scales. One of my uncles, for example, is amazingly stoic, even by the standards of his fellow air traffic controllers. Several of my coauthor's friends, on the opposite end of the spectrum, are drama hurricanes who specialise in turning molehills into Mount Everest. Your characters can occupy any point on this emotional scale, just like real people. An important consideration, however, is to make sure their emotional reactions scale to their priorities.

Exceptions
The character is desensitised or hyper-sensitised to something for a particular reason. Perhaps they over-react to someone's mild put-down because it's a 'trigger' that reminds them of a verbally abusive childhood; conversely, a medic may react calmly to the sight of their injured friend because they have been trained to go into 'work mode' when faced with a medical emergency.
The character has some neurochemical issues. Mental illness, hormones, substances, or a combination of the above can cause people to have seemingly disproportionate or nonsensical emotional responses.
Transference. The character is repressing their response to one event, and expresses their bottled-up feelings by having an over-the-top reaction to something unrelated.
The character is a sociopath or has another personality disorder. This can mean all kinds of emotional chaos and misplaced priorities, especially in situations that require empathy for others.

Oh, Rubbish!

 If one lives in a developed country, one has the privilege of ignoring trash. Once you’ve emptied your personal basket of used tissues and gum wrappers and food scraps into a big rubbish bin for pickup, it’s out of sight and out of mind. In the world-building process, however, it’s well worth considering how a society disposes of their garbage, as this tells volumes about their economy, infrastructure, and the like. The fact that the Aztecs could keep their streets clean via a sophisticated sewer system (as was the case in Rome and various parts of East Asia) shows a high level of organisation and a high value on order. In contrast, 17th century urban Scots persistently burned their non-compostable trash outdoors in spite of the best efforts of local council to institute an organised rubbish pickup—reflective of general scorn for government authority and the persistence of rural habits in a newly urbanised environment. If you’re building a setting from scratch, the trash has a lot to tell you. Are there class differences in waste disposal, for example, wealthy neighbourhoods having good sewers and trash collection, while the garbage in poor neighbourhoods is left to fester? Who disposes of the trash—is there a organised collection and dumping site, or is it everyone for themselves? How much stuff gets thrown away, and how much effort is there to repurpose or recycle waste? Where is the trash eventually dumped relative to settlements and important environmental features? Is care taken to avoid problems like pollution of the water supply?Those are just some questions to get you started, but you may find it's an integral part of your story as well as a background piece in your setting. Happy fictional dumpster-diving!

Raptor Jesus and the Art of Affectionate Satire

Perhaps this makes me a bad Christian, but I find the image on the left (a parody of this original) hilarious. I think this is because it hits the nail on the head as far as being affectionate satire.
Affectionate satire pokes fun at something without malice, usually born of appreciation of the source material. To use the example presented, the painting mocks the saccharine images which have popped up in recent Christian art (particularly in the West). The incongruity in and of itself is amusing. But at the same time, it's a tribute to the source-- if Jesus is a manifestation of supernatural love for the world, why not cuddle a raptor?
Ultimately, affectionate satire is about showing why something works even whilst acknowledging the weirdness or silliness or melodrama inherent in that thing. It's taking it apart and playing with it to put it back together in a funnier, better way-- a constructive criticism and a tribute and a joke all in one.