Melanie Edmonds's Blog, page 40

Apocalypse Blog now available at Amazon

After some shenanigans over the weekend, the Apocalypse Blog is now available through Amazon! You can get it direct to your Kindle from the US, UK and German stores.

You can find the books on my Author Page, or here are some handy links to the US store versions:

Book 0: Before the End
Book 1: End of the Old

Enjoy! And don't forget to tell all your friends about them!

When they get away

Warning: potential spoilers here. If you haven't read (up to and including) this week's Starwalker post, go catch up quick!

So, this week's Starwalker post went a little sideways on me while I was writing it. Which is not to say that it went badly – on the contrary, the reactions have been very positive! It just wound up not being what I intended.

I've got a little list of the stuff that I need to cover in order to get the story to where it needs to be for the end of Book 2. Next in line was a discussion about the implications of time travel, but somehow, the characters didn't want to talk about that. No, they decided that they'd get hung up on the issue of legally changing the starship's ownership to escape prosecution.

As I was writing the scene, it reminded me of at the end of Book 1, in which the crew had to decide whether to stay on board or not. This week's post came down to the same question, for a different reason. I'm not a fan of repetition but it was difficult to get away from – the decision had to be made in order for them to be able to move forward, and while the captain could have made it on their behalf, that's not the sort of person he is. Not to mention that having a pissed-off crew would have caused more and different problems down the track.

Perhaps it's a happy symmetry, instead. Both books have come to a point where the crew have to weigh up just how much they want to stay, points of no return for them to step over. Thinking about the projected arc of the third book, it's likely that there'll be a moment like that towards the end there as well (again, for a different reason).

 I suspect that when it comes to editing the Starwalker books (into ebooks or for submission to traditional publishers), I'll either shine them up into a more pleasing symmetry, or take one of them out. Having just got done with editing the first book of the Apocalypse Blog, the chances of me taking something out are fairly slim (I hate throwing stuff away).

There's definite scope for improvement in there, though, once I can see the bigger picture. Writing the way that I do, it's sometimes hard to keep the big picture in mind, especially as deep into the story as I am right now. I'm pretty determined that I won't start editing this story until I have all three books written, so I can get that 1,000-foot view of the story as a whole.

Back to this week's post, it wound up completely missing out on what I originally set out to achieve. I had written in the talk about time travel at the end, but that not only added almost 1,000 words to the post (and they're getting way too long lately!); it also changed the tone of the post entirely. Starry's giddy moment was quashed by the seriousness of what followed and wound up getting lost.

The more I looked at the post, the more it felt crammed and trying to do too much. It wound up muddled, particularly in terms of the emotions running through it. And, hell, I'm not tied to any particular deadline for the end of Book 2, so why rush it? So the serious bit at the end has been pulled out (and will be filled out/polished for next week's post) and it just focusses on the crew's deliberations and decisions.

I tend to write for and from character, and I've grown to love writing the conversations in Starwalker. The transcript-style format is fun to play with, and I enjoy the rapid back-and-forth nature of it. My cast have such different voices to play with, and often their perspectives surprise me.

I had expected Cameron to be the one to be most disturbed by the captain's proposed course of action (due to the legal violations involved), but she was very calm and pragmatic about it. Elliott was quiet, which makes a change from his usual mouthiness, but he already knew about the proposal. Rosie got to be the outraged one for the most part, which amuses me because she's also the one most likely to smack someone in the face.

Of all of them, Lang Lang was the biggest surprise. When I started the conversation, I wasn't sure how she would react, but when it came time for her to speak, she knew exactly what she wanted to say.  That was one of the easiest bits of the post for me to write (and I'd be lying if I said it didn't make me a little emotional!).

I think it was Lang Lang's statement that determined the subject of the post. Her quiet declaration and its affect on Starry fitted so beautifully into the starship's evolution that I wanted to hug them both. Starry's going through so many changes lately, stamping around in her processors like a rebellious teenager, and she needed this little gem to alter her perspective slightly.

Through much of this book, Starry has been a kid trying to work out who she wants to grow up to be. She has been searching for so many things, like safety, security, and belonging. Her homecoming and Is-Tech's rejection damaged her more than she realises – they're her parental substitutes - but it also gave her the strength to try to stand on her own. Lang Lang's statement helped with that too, but in a more positive way.

I bandied names for the books around a while ago, and have roughly settled on Identity for Book 1, and Ownership for Book 2. The story is taking that idea into places I hadn't originally planned, just like this week's post didn't quite turn out the way I had intended. But I'm far from complaining: I love where this is going. It's so much fun to write!

Can't wait to share it all with you. :)

Apocalypse Blog ebooks now available!

After a weekend of madly formatting, checking, proofing, and uploading, the first two ebooks of the Apocalypse Blog are now available on Smashwords! They are:

Book 0: Before the End – free prequel!
Book 1: End of the Old – the first of the trilogy, starting when the bomb went off. Now with new and extended content!

I had piles of fun editing through the first book of the Apocalypse Blog, and wound up extending a lot of the posts. A few gaps filled in here, some detail in there.

It feels great to finally have them up now, released into the wild! I have a little bit of work to do on the covers (they're gorgeous, but the file size needs to be adjusted) before the books can go out to more stores, but it's all good.

So far, the free Book 0 has had over 50 downloads. In less than 2 days! Wow. :)

For those of you who read this blog, you can get Book 1 for half price by entering this coupon: "ZY43T" Valid this week only!

Next job: edit up Book 2 for release!

On literary and popular fiction

I recently attended a talk on writing literary vs popular fiction at the Brisbane Writer's Festival. When I signed up, I was hoping for answers to a number of questions, like:

What is considered literary fiction?
What is excluded?
What is literary fiction for?
Why is popular fiction classed as low-brow entertainment?
How has literary fiction changed with the times?
How does popular fiction become literary fiction?
Who decides?
Can fiction be both?

Sadly, the discussion was not what I had hoped. I don't think they touched on any of the questions above, apart from a brief flirt with how literary fiction can move with the times (which told us little except that it cando it).

I had a far more interesting, pointed discussion about literary and popular fiction with my two well-read writing-inclined friends afterwards than I heard inside the auditorium.

Part of the problem was that the chair of the panel gave long, rambling monologues that had a question buried among his many, many phrases, and no-one had thought to bring a shovel. The panelists didn't quite know what they were supposed to be answering, so tended to speak on their best guess about what they were there for.

Another problem was that the one popular author on the panel had come from a background of creating popular television, and the talk skewed towards her screen stories rather than her novels. It wasn't a good examination of popular fiction today, because they didn't spend much time actually discussing popular fiction writing. Comparing literary fiction to TV shows is like comparing an egg to a piece of cheese.

They didn't once mention the place of different genres of fiction, or the struggle to get non-mainstream (or any fiction not classed by a bookstore as 'literary') viewed as quality or well-crafted writing. It is rare for a science fiction book to win a literary prize, for example (and until relatively recently, it was unheard-of). But nope, that didn't rate a mention. Not even a little rant about trash like Twilight becoming so popular.

I'm disappointed by the talk because I don't read much literary fiction any more and don't tend to follow the big literary prizes. They're not relevant to my life or my writing at this point; I don't consider myself a reader or writer of literary fiction. However, I am interested in the distinctions that are imposed upon literature in the modern climate. Sadly, I have enough trouble squeezing in the things that I want to do right now!

I have a degree in English Literature and can decode literary fiction if I choose to, but it's simply not the kind of reading that I enjoy; I prefer to read for entertainment rather than intellectual gymnastics. I like intelligent writing, but not the forced way that literary fiction often comes out. I prefer story over stylistic flourishes (though I enjoy literary techniques that enhance the story).

Plus, a lot of that stuff is aspirations to high-falutin ideals dressed in pretentious clothing, containing little of value except a reason for educated people to sound educated at each other. It doesn't help that all the writers I know who aim to create literary fiction are pretentious, snobby twits who look down their nose at every other kind of writing. (Maybe it's just the writers I know that are like this!)

To be fair, I don't think that literary fiction is a waste of time. It has its place; the nature and purpose of that place is what I'm curious about, as well as how big it is (or could be). For me, it's like the statue of David: important as a piece of art with the potential to be beautiful and instructive, but I wouldn't want the sucker standing in my living room.

As a writer, I do take a certain pleasure in crafting words onto a page using literary devices. There is something beautiful about weaving text in that kind of way, the subtle layering of subtext and meanings.

However, it doesn't always fit with what I'm trying to achieve; it might not suit the voice I'm using or the kind of piece I'm creating. First and foremost, I write for character and story (usually in that order). If I can work in devices, craft clever bits of phrasing or imagery, then I'm happy, but it's usually subtle and not the point of what I'm trying to convey. I use them to support the story, not the other way around, whereas in literary fiction, the opposite is the norm.

After the talk, I made a joke about starting up a review site for literary fiction, done from the perspective of someone who isn't enamoured of the form. It's very tempting! If I had the time and the will to do it, I would. Of course, that would mean reading at least some literary fiction, which sounds more like a job than fun to me. But if I had the time, I'd still do it.

Literary fiction remains an enigma on the periphery of my vision, a voice that expounds away to itself in a posh accent and has little relevance to my life. I am curious, and disappointed that the talk did nothing to illuminate the closed halls of literary fiction. I am left with my assumptions and knowledge from a years-ago degree, and can only consign literature to a corner of my world that I don't look at very often.

One of the panelists quoted an author (in another talk), who was asked, "What would you prefer: a literary prize or high books sales?" Her answer was, "High book sales, because that means reaching more readers." (This was the highlight of the talk.) It got a laugh from the audience, but I wonder if that's because she's right as well as mercenary.

I can't remember her name now, but I completely agree with her. I'd rather be read than acclaimed. I write to touch people's lives, share something with them and hopefully entertain them in the process. That's part of why I (currently) give my work away for free.

I hope to craft my work well but I don't need an academic (or a highly-educated critic) to tell me that I can write. It would be nice, I admit, but I'm already fairly confident that I have some skill. I'm constantly learning and seeking out new avenues to gain new insights.

I prefer to create more accessible art. I don't want to produce some untouchable, coded thing that has to be unpicked like a puzzle box. And I write science fiction, because that's where my heart lies and I don't care about literary acclaim.

One day I hope to master both, as I suspect that many writers strive for, because it's good for us to aim for the stars. I don't know if it's possible to get there, but maybe we'll catch an updraft and fly a little way.

Writing about dangerous ideas

One of the talks that I attended at this year's Brisbane Writer's Festival was on 'dangerous ideas'. It brought up some interesting points, and is a topic that I find fascinating. It's like a shiny, smooth rock that you turn over in your hands and get the urge to launch through someone's window.

The first question that comes up is: what is a dangerous idea? What kinds of things are dangerous to write about?

Let's put aside for the moment the effect of location and what that means for a writer's 'safety'. There are many parts of the world where the wrong (right!) type of writing will land you in prison, or worse. The BWF always remembers these writers with an empty chair on the stage at each event, representing all those writers who can't join us because their writing has caused them to be unavailable. I love this tradition in the festival and applaud their desire to keep these suppressed writers in our minds. However, it's not quite what this post is about, so I'm going to leave it there.

In the Western world, what is considered dangerous to write about? What raises people's ire, shakes fingers, or is simply viewed as risque? Should we write about these things? Should we restrain ourselves? All interesting questions, and none of the answers are simple.

The danger of silence

One of the most striking comments from the talk was made by Rachel DeWoskin. (This is badly paraphrased from memory, but this is the gist of what she said.) She said that when it comes to taboo topics - like underage sex, or abuse, or teenage desire, or cannibalism - the most dangerous idea was to not talk about it. The notion of shutting these things away and never looking at them is a terrible one for her, and I agree. Talking about dangerous things is less dangerous than not talking about them.

This reminds me of a conversation I once had with a Jehovah's Witness on my doorstep. The woman opened the conversation by saying how sad it was that things were so terrible for children these days. How we couldn't let them play outside on their own, how we had to protect them from the many dangers that surround them now. Wasn't it awful how things had declined over the years and that things were getting so much worse?

I thought about it for a moment, then I said: No. She looked a bit shocked, so I explained.

It is terrible that there are dangers out there for children and the world is a frightening place. But I don't think it is getting worse. The difference between the past and the present is that we are talking about it more now. We know about all those many things that might hurt a child, such as abuse, paedophilia, or bullying. It's not new; we are simply starting to understand the size of a problem that was always there.

Yes, it looks awful, but better to look at it than pretend it isn't happening. Better to be aware and protect our children. Better to be able to fight it. Awareness is the first step in being able to stop it, not a symptom of a decline into an abyss.

(The woman went away after that. This is something of a pattern with me and people who strike up conversations on my doorstep.)

Part of the purpose of any type of art is to reveal the truth. To examine, to provoke, to ask questions. To make people think about something, even if it's an uncomfortable topic. Pretending that teenagers don't have a sex drive might make some people more comfortable, but how does that help a teenager learn how to deal with it, or how to protect themselves from the issues that it brings? How does that help us improve anything?

Sensitivity

So, bringing these issues out into the open is a good thing. That said, when you talk about taboo subjects, how do you avoid sliding into voyeurism, cheap sensationalism, or pornography?

The panel agreed that this was largely a matter of taste (the panel being: Rachel, Tim Richards and Cory Taylor). For some, the mere mention of a subject is pornographic, while the bar is much higher for other readers. As writers (or artists of any type), you cannot guarantee that you're not going to offend someone.

That's not to say that you shouldn't try to avoid offense. Treating the subject matter with respect, sensitivity, and empathy is the best perspective to start from.

Do your research in the area you're discussing, and talk to the people that you're writing about. Rachel's book Big Girl Small is about a girl with a form of Dwarfism, and she consulted hundreds of Little People (I believe that is the correct term) to make sure she got it right. Cory made a short film about a Down Syndrome teenager and spoke with many families with Down Syndrome members about their experiences; afterwards, they thanked her for getting it right.

I think these are good rules of thumb, no matter what subject you're writing about (taboo or otherwise). Coming from a place of empathy is especially important when you're dealing with a sensitive topic, though. Again, awareness is key.

Morality

Sadly, the talk didn't get into the moral side of the issues for writers. This is a part of this topic that I find interesting. While the panel agreed that art should bring taboo topics out into the open, should ask questions, I believe that writing does more than that and cannot avoid morality entirely. The way that taboos are presented makes a difference, and that's where the moral issue comes into play.

If you have ever had to write a questionnaire, you will know that there are many ways to phrase the same question. The wording that you choose influences the answers you're likely to get. Someone skilled in this can present a survey and get exactly the results that they're looking for. As writers, we should be aware of this, especially when handling a sensitive topic. Wording, presentation, and perception matter.

So is there a moral imperitive for writers? Should they only present things in an ethical manner?

I find those questions hard to answer. My instinct is to say: no. Writers do not have to be driven by high moral rules in order to write about taboo subjects. We do not have to present every murderer as a blackhearted demon or a mentally unstable drooler, or every rapist as a violent underachiever.

But writers should be aware that their presentation will colour how a reader views that subject. Is presenting a sympathetic paedophile the 'right' thing to do? Is, perhaps, the horror that such a thing presents to a reader the point of such a presentation? Is it possible for a piece of art to excuse it?

What about murder? Look at the Dexter series (books or TV) and how a serial killer becomes the hero, even while he's exercising his serial killing desires. Look at (the dreaded) Twilight and how it presents a violent stalker and a passive, weak girl, as if they are an ideal for others to live up to.

I find some of these presentations insidious and repulsive. To me, they present a talking-point as something to object to – and this, too, can be the point of an artistic presentation. Prompting talk (sometimes of any kind, even negative) can be a worthy purpose. Sadly, with the more popular examples, too few look at the details and take the surface on faith. Too few question it. The writing slides under their skin and they don't look any further.

Morality is like taste; it varies between readers and you'll never satisfy everyone. So should you seek to satisfy anyone?

Like I said, I find these questions hard to answer. Personally, I try to stay true to my own morals and go from there. I suppose that that's all you can ask of an artist. That, and be conscious of what you're presenting and how it might be read. That is something that I suspect gets lost much of the time.

Awareness. Sensitivity. Empathy. With these three things, I don't think that you can go wrong when dealing with controversial topics. But keep dealing with them, because we are the world's window to the truth, whatever flavour we choose to suck on.

Weekend of writing and awesomeness

It's been a hell of a weekend, and though it's Tuesday, it has only just finished for me. Why, you ask? Well, let me explain…

 On Friday, my Creative Writing Group met. I decided to do a session on first lines, and took along a list of first lines from novels across a range of genres and periods (many thanks to my friend who helped me to compile the list). Then we discussed them blindly (that is, without knowing what book or author they were from), to see what we thought of them as first lines on their own merits alone.

It was an interesting exercise and prompted a lot of talk. Curiously enough, even though someone didn't like the first line, they would usually read on to find out the answer to the (annoying) question that was posed. It turns out that grabbing your reader doesn't have to mean grabbing them in a good way. Boring first lines came out the worst of all, and I think that's a good rule of thumb: never bore your reader.

After the meeting, there was dinner and bookish chats with my writing-friends. Always good to do that!

Saturday was the day of my RedFest talk, which I have squeeped and babbled about recently. It was my first appearance at an event like that; I've done plenty of talks and so on for my CWG, but this was different! And, for the record, I hate public speaking. I'm getting better at it (slowly), but I still got horribly nervous.

Big thanks to my friends for supporting me at the RedFest (you know who you are): helping me set up and giving me tea and sitting through the talk to bulk out the numbers. I didn't get many attendees (probably about ten in total), but that was fine by me. I hadn't expected a lot of people to come to the talk; it's a local fair, and I guessed that most of the people who were seriously interested in writing would be at the Brisbane Writer's Festival. Why do all of these things have to coincide?

I had some good questions from the audience and managed to cover all the material I had written out for publishing online. Overall, I was happy with how it went, and learned some things to use for next time (should there be one!).

After we had escaped the clutches of the RedFest, I got all dolled up with some friends and headed out for dinner to celebrate my birthday. Had a great time: too much food, cocktails, and ice cream; and much talking and silliness.

Sunday was an early start – we had to be on a train by 8:15 – which was awesome after the night before. Luckily, I was without a hangover (I hadn't drunk anywhere near enough for one of those, despite pouring Baileys on my ice cream). I was heading to the Brisbane Writer's Festival, determined to get in at least some of the events before the whole thing was over.

I managed to get to three talks in total, none of which were exactly what I was expecting. They were on the digital revolution in writing, writing about taboo or 'dangerous' ideas, and literary vs popular fiction. I was left largely disgruntled with how the talks turned out (apart from the middle one). I plan to write up blog posts about each of them, so I won't go into detail here – more soon!

In the middle of all of that, I snuck up to the Queensland Writer's Centre and collared a couple of the lovely, helpful staff. Some more of our NaNoWriMo plans have been sorted out, and the QWC will be supporting us again this year. I'm currently working with them to arrange a write-out in November: writing out on a lawn by the riverside, in shade and sunshine.

I also took part in a writing race at the QWC, captained by the lovely Trent Jamieson. An hour of writing intensively, in a scarily quiet room! I went in with not a clue about what this week's Starwalker post should be, managed to write almost 2,000 words (!!!), and won the race! Excellent.

I'm still not sure what this week's Starwalker post will be, but I have a pile of material to massage into something coherent. Whether it will make the post easier or harder to construct has yet to be ascertained.

After such a packed weekend, I took a day's holiday from work to recover (yesterday). A sleep in, a lazy day on the couch with games and DVDs, and nothing pressing to do was just what the CFS ordered. Then my folks took me out for beautiful slow-cooked steaks (another birthday dinner), and we stuffed ourselves with way too much food.

I'm back at work now and definitely feeling brighter for the break. It's been crazy but so worth it! Some of the stuff that was talked about over the weekend is ticking at my brain, and once this weeks Starwalker is sorted out, I'll be turning my attention to capturing those thoughts into posts and sticking them up here. Don't hold your breath; it might take a while.

Thanks to everyone who made this weekend awesome. Best birthday I've had in a long time. Here's to surviving another year, and to lots more to come!