Mark Phillips's Blog, page 3
January 26, 2015
On the importance of The Interview
February is almost upon us and here, in Michigan, the air has turned cold and bitter. Great book reading weather. As such, I would like to announce that I have two books available for pre-order.
Before the Mask Which will be released on February 12th. One year after the publication of Beneath the Mask of Sanity we come back to Bentley and discover his origins.
Also: The Space Between
A novel about one man's life from 1937 until 1998. It will be released on April 16th and I am very excited about it.
Now, to get to what we're really here for.
The Interview is now available on Netflix and I have just finished watching it.
The controversy surrounding the film is well-known and largely behind us, but there is an irony here. The North Korean government was very angry about the film and called it blatant terrorism. The irony is that the film is nothing more then recycled fluff that means nothing.
But it could have been so much more.
The concept for The Interview (a TV tabloid host interviewing a brutal dictator) is genius, but the storyline fails to do justice to the incredible premise.
What I would have loved to see was a more serious look at the nature of propaganda and manipulation as shown by both North Korea and The United States.
I'm not suggesting that the film not be a comedy, far from it, I'm simply saying that the film could have been a much better comedy. One that meant something.
And what's irritating is that there is the nugget of that story in the film. There are allusions to the issues, but they are dealt with in such a superficial nature and for such a short period of time. Instead we're left with a parade of homosexual-themed jokes, gross-out humor and slapstick. All of which we have seen before. There's no new ground being broken here.
I think they could have made a brilliant comedy, but they went cheap and they went easy.
The idea of a TV tabloid host interviewing a dictator is great. After all, the reason that David Frost was selected to interview Richard Nixon after his resignation and the Watergate scandal was because they viewed him as more of a comedian than a serious journalist. So the idea that Kim Jong-Un would agree to an interview with a tabloid journalist is not totally absurd.
Manipulation is a theme through the movie, but it almost seems to get in the way of the silly antics of Seth Rogen and James Franco.
Instead, manipulation should have been the heart of the movie. There are instances where North Korea uses manipulation and propaganda, of course, but there are also instances where agents of The United States do the exact same thing. The difference is that we're supposed to root for the U.S. because they are the "good guys".
I would have loved it if the C.I.A. had been villainized more in this movie. The motivations of The United States questioned. If there had been a hard look at the kinds of manipulation our own media pulls and how it parallels with North Korea.
The movie should have started with a serious core plot and then had the jokes and gags written to fill-in the rest of the movie. The humor should have played up the ideas in the film. Instead, the ideas are lost in the sea of stale comedy.
Basically what I'm saying is the movie could have been brilliant satire. Almost like Dr. Strangelove was decades earlier--only funnier.
What they opted for was broad comedy and slapstick which drags down the brilliant idea behind the movie. They didn't do the idea justice and that is one unforgivable sin in writing.
Despite what you've just read, I didn't hate the movie. I thought it was okay. If I were grading on a star-scale of 1 to 5, I would probably give it a 2.5. I can't really recommend it, but it's not the worst thing you'll see. My biggest problem is that the jokes aren't funny. They are all things I've seen before and I didn't laugh once during the whole thing. What kept me watching was the plot of the movie.
What made me sad was the movie it could have been.
Before the Mask Which will be released on February 12th. One year after the publication of Beneath the Mask of Sanity we come back to Bentley and discover his origins.
Also: The Space Between
A novel about one man's life from 1937 until 1998. It will be released on April 16th and I am very excited about it.
Now, to get to what we're really here for.
The Interview is now available on Netflix and I have just finished watching it.
The controversy surrounding the film is well-known and largely behind us, but there is an irony here. The North Korean government was very angry about the film and called it blatant terrorism. The irony is that the film is nothing more then recycled fluff that means nothing.
But it could have been so much more.
The concept for The Interview (a TV tabloid host interviewing a brutal dictator) is genius, but the storyline fails to do justice to the incredible premise.
What I would have loved to see was a more serious look at the nature of propaganda and manipulation as shown by both North Korea and The United States.
I'm not suggesting that the film not be a comedy, far from it, I'm simply saying that the film could have been a much better comedy. One that meant something.
And what's irritating is that there is the nugget of that story in the film. There are allusions to the issues, but they are dealt with in such a superficial nature and for such a short period of time. Instead we're left with a parade of homosexual-themed jokes, gross-out humor and slapstick. All of which we have seen before. There's no new ground being broken here.
I think they could have made a brilliant comedy, but they went cheap and they went easy.
The idea of a TV tabloid host interviewing a dictator is great. After all, the reason that David Frost was selected to interview Richard Nixon after his resignation and the Watergate scandal was because they viewed him as more of a comedian than a serious journalist. So the idea that Kim Jong-Un would agree to an interview with a tabloid journalist is not totally absurd.
Manipulation is a theme through the movie, but it almost seems to get in the way of the silly antics of Seth Rogen and James Franco.
Instead, manipulation should have been the heart of the movie. There are instances where North Korea uses manipulation and propaganda, of course, but there are also instances where agents of The United States do the exact same thing. The difference is that we're supposed to root for the U.S. because they are the "good guys".
I would have loved it if the C.I.A. had been villainized more in this movie. The motivations of The United States questioned. If there had been a hard look at the kinds of manipulation our own media pulls and how it parallels with North Korea.
The movie should have started with a serious core plot and then had the jokes and gags written to fill-in the rest of the movie. The humor should have played up the ideas in the film. Instead, the ideas are lost in the sea of stale comedy.
Basically what I'm saying is the movie could have been brilliant satire. Almost like Dr. Strangelove was decades earlier--only funnier.
What they opted for was broad comedy and slapstick which drags down the brilliant idea behind the movie. They didn't do the idea justice and that is one unforgivable sin in writing.
Despite what you've just read, I didn't hate the movie. I thought it was okay. If I were grading on a star-scale of 1 to 5, I would probably give it a 2.5. I can't really recommend it, but it's not the worst thing you'll see. My biggest problem is that the jokes aren't funny. They are all things I've seen before and I didn't laugh once during the whole thing. What kept me watching was the plot of the movie.
What made me sad was the movie it could have been.
January 15, 2015
On the importance of Originality
I have noticed a disturbing trend in movies recently.
The top five movies of 2014 were:
1. Guardians of the Galaxy
2. The Hunger Games
3. Captain America
4. The Lego Movie
5. Transformers
Besides The Lego Movie, each one of these films is a big-budget action flick, and there are many more in the full top 50 list. Now, I have nothing against a good action film, but I do have a problem with how a lot of these movies are being made.
This is not a criticism of quality, by the way. There are many movies on the list which are very good, this is more about a certain aspect of these kinds of movies.
Allow me to make a parallel. Action scenes in a movie is like description in a novel. It can add a lot to the piece, but a little bit goes a long way. When action movies are truly great it's because the director salts the action little by little throughout the movie. It does not dominate the entire thing.
Unfortunately this is a lesson that many filmmakers have seemed to forgotten, because most of the action movies coming out now are dominated by their action scenes.
You see, when an action scene happens in a movie, or description happens in a book, nothing is really happening.
Of course, there are things happening, but they are passive things. Either a character is looking at something (and by extension the reader is as well) or the audience is looking at something (most often, explosions).
What I mean is that there is nothing going on in the story during these scenes. There is no character development, no story building.
Some people may go to a movie to see action scenes (I don't, but I'm sure there are people who do) but what they will remember long after the rest of the movie has faded from their minds are the characters and the story. That is, if your movie has characters or a story.
Action scenes really only pack in emotional punch if you care about the characters that are involved in them. And that can't happen unless the filmmakers give you a reason to care about the characters. When you don't care, these scenes just come off as boring exhibitions of special effects.
The problem is that, with the development of computer graphics and other methods, special effects are much more cost-effective and easier to produce than they ever have been. Too many directors use this to their advantage to try and create slick and exciting movies, but they are vapid and without any heart.
But just because a thing is easy to do does not mean it should be done so easily. When reduced to the words on the page many of these scripts are crippled things that have chance of engaging an audience. These movies prop themselves up with mindless action and hand-wave away the fact that the protagonist is a stock character.
So what does this have to do with writing? Well, unfortunately, I've read a lot of books lately that are following the same trend of these movies.
Writers are products of their environment and their books reflect what they have seen and felt. Too many young writers have grown up watching these movies and, falsely, believe this is how to tell a story.
They believe this because these movies are popular. There are numerous reasons for this: some of the movies are actually good and do contain characters and stories, many of these movies are based on previous material (comic books or novels) and the audience has grown attached to the characters based on the work of people other than the director of the movie. And sometimes people just want to see a mindless action flick, and that's okay.
But do you really think that fifty years from now people will talk about Captain America: The Winter Soldier? I doubt it. But they will still be talking about The Shawshank Redemption. That movie has very little in the way of action, but it does have interesting characters and a great story. Those are the things that last.
Now I see books that try to ape the action and adventure of the screen. Action in a book is the same as description, it's good in small doses. If you are telling me about every single blade of grass in a field then I am going to get bored. In the same way if every single scene in your book is one fist-fight or enormous explosion or battle scene followed one after the other, then I am going to get bored.
Whether we realize it or not, we don't go to the movies to see big explosions and we don't read books to hear about the good guy beating the crap out of the bad guy.
We seek stories because we want ideas, we want characters. We want to see people who we can relate to, and people who we absolutely hate.
We want ideas about life and love and the nature of existence and our place in society.
One of the best books to come out in recent years is World War Z. If you have not read the novel, you simply must. It is a brilliant piece of fiction.
Now the book contains some action, to be sure, we are, after all, talking about a zombie apocalypse.
However, the book is not wall to wall action. There are a lot of great ideas in the book and a lot of memorable characters. At its heart, World War Z is about global economies and the nature of freedom. About the importance of individuality and the need for community. It is a rich and complex book that is filled with ideas. And it's a hell of a fun read at the same time.
What did Hollywood do with World War Z? They turned it into a mindless action film with cliched dialogue and stock characters. It did nothing to set it apart from any other action film, nor did it really follow the book in any appreciable way. The book is such a vastly different story than the movie that I can't believe they paid the author for the rights to the book. They might as well have titled it something else and no judge in the world would have ruled against the filmmakers. There is simply almost no similiarities between the book and the movie.
So why did they do it? Why did they produce another mindless action film? I believe it's because there are not very many screenwriters left that are capable of telling an epic story. Apparently, there aren't many left that can even ADAPT an epic story.
Screenwriters are dropping the ball left and right in Hollywood, and they are dragging down promising young novelists with them.
So if you're a writer, when you sit down to begin your book don't write what you think will be popular, don't fill your book with action and call it "fast-paced". Write about people; write about ideas. Your audience will thank you for it.
The top five movies of 2014 were:
1. Guardians of the Galaxy
2. The Hunger Games
3. Captain America
4. The Lego Movie
5. Transformers
Besides The Lego Movie, each one of these films is a big-budget action flick, and there are many more in the full top 50 list. Now, I have nothing against a good action film, but I do have a problem with how a lot of these movies are being made.
This is not a criticism of quality, by the way. There are many movies on the list which are very good, this is more about a certain aspect of these kinds of movies.
Allow me to make a parallel. Action scenes in a movie is like description in a novel. It can add a lot to the piece, but a little bit goes a long way. When action movies are truly great it's because the director salts the action little by little throughout the movie. It does not dominate the entire thing.
Unfortunately this is a lesson that many filmmakers have seemed to forgotten, because most of the action movies coming out now are dominated by their action scenes.
You see, when an action scene happens in a movie, or description happens in a book, nothing is really happening.
Of course, there are things happening, but they are passive things. Either a character is looking at something (and by extension the reader is as well) or the audience is looking at something (most often, explosions).
What I mean is that there is nothing going on in the story during these scenes. There is no character development, no story building.
Some people may go to a movie to see action scenes (I don't, but I'm sure there are people who do) but what they will remember long after the rest of the movie has faded from their minds are the characters and the story. That is, if your movie has characters or a story.
Action scenes really only pack in emotional punch if you care about the characters that are involved in them. And that can't happen unless the filmmakers give you a reason to care about the characters. When you don't care, these scenes just come off as boring exhibitions of special effects.
The problem is that, with the development of computer graphics and other methods, special effects are much more cost-effective and easier to produce than they ever have been. Too many directors use this to their advantage to try and create slick and exciting movies, but they are vapid and without any heart.
But just because a thing is easy to do does not mean it should be done so easily. When reduced to the words on the page many of these scripts are crippled things that have chance of engaging an audience. These movies prop themselves up with mindless action and hand-wave away the fact that the protagonist is a stock character.
So what does this have to do with writing? Well, unfortunately, I've read a lot of books lately that are following the same trend of these movies.
Writers are products of their environment and their books reflect what they have seen and felt. Too many young writers have grown up watching these movies and, falsely, believe this is how to tell a story.
They believe this because these movies are popular. There are numerous reasons for this: some of the movies are actually good and do contain characters and stories, many of these movies are based on previous material (comic books or novels) and the audience has grown attached to the characters based on the work of people other than the director of the movie. And sometimes people just want to see a mindless action flick, and that's okay.
But do you really think that fifty years from now people will talk about Captain America: The Winter Soldier? I doubt it. But they will still be talking about The Shawshank Redemption. That movie has very little in the way of action, but it does have interesting characters and a great story. Those are the things that last.
Now I see books that try to ape the action and adventure of the screen. Action in a book is the same as description, it's good in small doses. If you are telling me about every single blade of grass in a field then I am going to get bored. In the same way if every single scene in your book is one fist-fight or enormous explosion or battle scene followed one after the other, then I am going to get bored.
Whether we realize it or not, we don't go to the movies to see big explosions and we don't read books to hear about the good guy beating the crap out of the bad guy.
We seek stories because we want ideas, we want characters. We want to see people who we can relate to, and people who we absolutely hate.
We want ideas about life and love and the nature of existence and our place in society.
One of the best books to come out in recent years is World War Z. If you have not read the novel, you simply must. It is a brilliant piece of fiction.
Now the book contains some action, to be sure, we are, after all, talking about a zombie apocalypse.
However, the book is not wall to wall action. There are a lot of great ideas in the book and a lot of memorable characters. At its heart, World War Z is about global economies and the nature of freedom. About the importance of individuality and the need for community. It is a rich and complex book that is filled with ideas. And it's a hell of a fun read at the same time.
What did Hollywood do with World War Z? They turned it into a mindless action film with cliched dialogue and stock characters. It did nothing to set it apart from any other action film, nor did it really follow the book in any appreciable way. The book is such a vastly different story than the movie that I can't believe they paid the author for the rights to the book. They might as well have titled it something else and no judge in the world would have ruled against the filmmakers. There is simply almost no similiarities between the book and the movie.
So why did they do it? Why did they produce another mindless action film? I believe it's because there are not very many screenwriters left that are capable of telling an epic story. Apparently, there aren't many left that can even ADAPT an epic story.
Screenwriters are dropping the ball left and right in Hollywood, and they are dragging down promising young novelists with them.
So if you're a writer, when you sit down to begin your book don't write what you think will be popular, don't fill your book with action and call it "fast-paced". Write about people; write about ideas. Your audience will thank you for it.
January 6, 2015
On the importance of Ebook Promotion
2014 was a great year in terms of indie publishing, and hopefully, 2015 will allow indie authors to rise even higher.
It was the first year that indie authors had concrete data to prove that they were selling just as many books as traditionally published authors.
It was the first year that the stigma was finally removed from self-publishing, and successful indie authors were as respected by readers as successful traditionally published authors.
It was also the first year that I published a book.
2014 was a wild ride for me and I learned a lot about indie publishing. Putting your book out there to be read and judged by the masses is not an easy thing to do for most people, but it's a lot easier than trying to sell your book.
In years past, the biggest obstacle to publishing was simply getting your book published. Writers toiled and slaved away at query letters, trying to get them just right, so that they could catch the eye of a literary agent. That is no longer the case.
With the avenues wide open to anyone with even a passing knowledge of how the internet works, publishing a book is now as easy as one click.
Today, with the market so flooded with good (and not so good) books, the biggest challenge is in the marketing. There are firms like Bookbub (who I highly recommend) that can help you out tremendously. There are your friends and family that can help spread news of your book by word-of-mouth. Yet, there are also predators out there.
Do a Google search for ebook promotion and what you'll find is some useful information, along with a handful of people who want to sell you a website subscription or a banner ad that won't help you sell one book.
Whenever there is a group of people looking to achieve a dream there is another group of people looking to take advantage of the first group.
Now, I wish I could tell you that you need look no further than this blog to find your answers. I wish that I could lay everything out for you and give you the keys to success.
But I can't.
The truth is, there isn't just one key (or set of keys) for success. Each writer succeeds in their own way. Besides that, I'm not expert when it comes to marketing. I'm much like the rest of you; just trying to figure it all out as I go along. But if any of you reading this are just starting out I can give you a few tips.
Write a great book. This is step one and is the most important thing. Not every great book becomes a bestseller, but there are very few bad ones that do. Write the best book that you possibly can, and make sure that it is edited to perfection.
Design a great cover. People really do judge books by their cover. An arresting cover will get a lot of attention and cause people to take a look at the free chapter that most sites allow them to read. After being dazzled by your writing, they will be spurred to by the book.
The above is what you can control directly. After that, you need to come up with some sort of marketing plan. Obviously Facebook and Twitter will play a part, but what about beyond that?
How much money you want to spend is entirely up to you. Bookbub is great, but it is pretty expensive. There are other sites which are cheaper, but the return on investment might not be as good. I haven't done any research on this; I can only go from my own personal experience.
The bottom line is this, I don't think you have to spend any money at all if you don't want to. Paid advertisement is dicey at best. I can personally attest that Bookbub is worth the money and provides great results, but it's not necessary to use them. You can still become a breakout success without that.
You want to engage potential fans whenever you can. It's hard to find that line between spreading the word and being annoying, but you must find it. Word-of-mouth is still the biggest marketing tool for books and it's completely free. It's just hard to achieve.
My final piece of advice is to get lucky. This isn't something you can force, obviously, either you get lucky or you don't. However, you can tilt the odds a little bit. If you buy one lottery ticket you have a 1 in 285 million chance of winning the lottery. If you buy two tickets you have a 1 in 142.5 million chance. You doubled your odds (still extremely poor, of course) of winning by buying another ticket.
In the same way, if you write another great book and publish it your odds of getting lucky will double. The more books you publish, the more likely it will be that your name will travel and your books will sell.
So keep writing, keep reading and keep dreaming. Have a wonderful 2015.
It was the first year that indie authors had concrete data to prove that they were selling just as many books as traditionally published authors.
It was the first year that the stigma was finally removed from self-publishing, and successful indie authors were as respected by readers as successful traditionally published authors.
It was also the first year that I published a book.
2014 was a wild ride for me and I learned a lot about indie publishing. Putting your book out there to be read and judged by the masses is not an easy thing to do for most people, but it's a lot easier than trying to sell your book.
In years past, the biggest obstacle to publishing was simply getting your book published. Writers toiled and slaved away at query letters, trying to get them just right, so that they could catch the eye of a literary agent. That is no longer the case.
With the avenues wide open to anyone with even a passing knowledge of how the internet works, publishing a book is now as easy as one click.
Today, with the market so flooded with good (and not so good) books, the biggest challenge is in the marketing. There are firms like Bookbub (who I highly recommend) that can help you out tremendously. There are your friends and family that can help spread news of your book by word-of-mouth. Yet, there are also predators out there.
Do a Google search for ebook promotion and what you'll find is some useful information, along with a handful of people who want to sell you a website subscription or a banner ad that won't help you sell one book.
Whenever there is a group of people looking to achieve a dream there is another group of people looking to take advantage of the first group.
Now, I wish I could tell you that you need look no further than this blog to find your answers. I wish that I could lay everything out for you and give you the keys to success.
But I can't.
The truth is, there isn't just one key (or set of keys) for success. Each writer succeeds in their own way. Besides that, I'm not expert when it comes to marketing. I'm much like the rest of you; just trying to figure it all out as I go along. But if any of you reading this are just starting out I can give you a few tips.
Write a great book. This is step one and is the most important thing. Not every great book becomes a bestseller, but there are very few bad ones that do. Write the best book that you possibly can, and make sure that it is edited to perfection.
Design a great cover. People really do judge books by their cover. An arresting cover will get a lot of attention and cause people to take a look at the free chapter that most sites allow them to read. After being dazzled by your writing, they will be spurred to by the book.
The above is what you can control directly. After that, you need to come up with some sort of marketing plan. Obviously Facebook and Twitter will play a part, but what about beyond that?
How much money you want to spend is entirely up to you. Bookbub is great, but it is pretty expensive. There are other sites which are cheaper, but the return on investment might not be as good. I haven't done any research on this; I can only go from my own personal experience.
The bottom line is this, I don't think you have to spend any money at all if you don't want to. Paid advertisement is dicey at best. I can personally attest that Bookbub is worth the money and provides great results, but it's not necessary to use them. You can still become a breakout success without that.
You want to engage potential fans whenever you can. It's hard to find that line between spreading the word and being annoying, but you must find it. Word-of-mouth is still the biggest marketing tool for books and it's completely free. It's just hard to achieve.
My final piece of advice is to get lucky. This isn't something you can force, obviously, either you get lucky or you don't. However, you can tilt the odds a little bit. If you buy one lottery ticket you have a 1 in 285 million chance of winning the lottery. If you buy two tickets you have a 1 in 142.5 million chance. You doubled your odds (still extremely poor, of course) of winning by buying another ticket.
In the same way, if you write another great book and publish it your odds of getting lucky will double. The more books you publish, the more likely it will be that your name will travel and your books will sell.
So keep writing, keep reading and keep dreaming. Have a wonderful 2015.
December 29, 2014
On the importance of Breaking Bad
AMC is currently airing a marathon of Breaking Bad episodes. I am gleefully watching them over again and finding that I enjoy them just as much the second time around.
There is no doubt that the show was (and, for many, still is) a phenomenon. Many people call it the greatest television show in history.
This got me to thinking, what is it about the show that reached so many people?
The acting is great. Bryan Cranston and Aaron Paul bring it in every single scene they are in, which is most of the show. There are no lulls in performance they are constantly at their best. The rest of the cast is equally brilliant as are the guest stars. I particularly love John de Lancie.
While the acting obviously is a big draw to the show, I don't believe that it's what set it apart. What made the show so different from anything else we've seen was the writing.
Breaking Bad was a well-crafted show with some amazing writing talent. There is plenty of excitement and action to go around and it does add something to the experience, but the writers wisely focus on the characters.
People desire stories about other people. Explosions may make for good trailer fodder, but people will always be drawn to characters. We love seeing other humans and we love examinations of the many facets of the human psyche.
The writers of Breaking Bad understood this and they never let the action get in the way of the story they were trying to tell. They were making a show about people and how they behave and what shapes them.
Walter White's character arc is probably the most fascinating in recent memory. Yet it is not manufactured for the sake of plot. Plot is a clunky thing that can often take away from character. Instead each one of his actions is informed by his character, his desires and the consequences of his previous actions. It all flows organically from the character and feels natural. In the end his stunning transformation from mild-mannered (if depressed) chemistry teacher to enraged and murderous drug lord doesn't seem so shocking. It seems like a natural progression from each decision that he makes. What he suffers informs and changes his character.
Too many writers in Hollywood have forgotten how to tell these kinds of stories. Indeed, many novelists has forgotten as well. What we see instead is the parade of action movies with thinly veiled promises of moral or ethical dilemmas.
Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with a little action and ethical dilemmas can be fun, but they are constructed things. The heavy hand of the creator is visible when these things come up. Or, at least, it is when character is not developed.
Young writers should take a lesson from Breaking Bad, and could do worse than to aspire to that standard. Not that you should simply copy the form of normal guy becomes anti-hero--there is too much copying of that kind going around already.
No, what I want you to aspire to is how Breaking Bad handles characters. How they let the character shape the story. One example of this should serve for all. Vince Gilligan did an interview after the final episode where he spoke about how originally they envisioned a big scene with Walt storming in and murdering Jack's gang. As described it almost sounds Terminatoresque. Gilligan said that everyone realized that such a scene (while exciting) would go against Walt's character. That all the damage he did was based on intelligence and not brute force.
Thus they opted for an ending more in line with the character. It still proved exciting, but what is more important is that they let the character dictate the story and they didn't let the story dictate the character.
That is the lesson that all young writers should take from the show. Every story, at its heart, is about people, because people love stories about people.
Be true to your characters and let them write the story for you. It's more satisfying for you, and more satisfying for your readers.
There is no doubt that the show was (and, for many, still is) a phenomenon. Many people call it the greatest television show in history.
This got me to thinking, what is it about the show that reached so many people?
The acting is great. Bryan Cranston and Aaron Paul bring it in every single scene they are in, which is most of the show. There are no lulls in performance they are constantly at their best. The rest of the cast is equally brilliant as are the guest stars. I particularly love John de Lancie.
While the acting obviously is a big draw to the show, I don't believe that it's what set it apart. What made the show so different from anything else we've seen was the writing.
Breaking Bad was a well-crafted show with some amazing writing talent. There is plenty of excitement and action to go around and it does add something to the experience, but the writers wisely focus on the characters.
People desire stories about other people. Explosions may make for good trailer fodder, but people will always be drawn to characters. We love seeing other humans and we love examinations of the many facets of the human psyche.
The writers of Breaking Bad understood this and they never let the action get in the way of the story they were trying to tell. They were making a show about people and how they behave and what shapes them.
Walter White's character arc is probably the most fascinating in recent memory. Yet it is not manufactured for the sake of plot. Plot is a clunky thing that can often take away from character. Instead each one of his actions is informed by his character, his desires and the consequences of his previous actions. It all flows organically from the character and feels natural. In the end his stunning transformation from mild-mannered (if depressed) chemistry teacher to enraged and murderous drug lord doesn't seem so shocking. It seems like a natural progression from each decision that he makes. What he suffers informs and changes his character.
Too many writers in Hollywood have forgotten how to tell these kinds of stories. Indeed, many novelists has forgotten as well. What we see instead is the parade of action movies with thinly veiled promises of moral or ethical dilemmas.
Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with a little action and ethical dilemmas can be fun, but they are constructed things. The heavy hand of the creator is visible when these things come up. Or, at least, it is when character is not developed.
Young writers should take a lesson from Breaking Bad, and could do worse than to aspire to that standard. Not that you should simply copy the form of normal guy becomes anti-hero--there is too much copying of that kind going around already.
No, what I want you to aspire to is how Breaking Bad handles characters. How they let the character shape the story. One example of this should serve for all. Vince Gilligan did an interview after the final episode where he spoke about how originally they envisioned a big scene with Walt storming in and murdering Jack's gang. As described it almost sounds Terminatoresque. Gilligan said that everyone realized that such a scene (while exciting) would go against Walt's character. That all the damage he did was based on intelligence and not brute force.
Thus they opted for an ending more in line with the character. It still proved exciting, but what is more important is that they let the character dictate the story and they didn't let the story dictate the character.
That is the lesson that all young writers should take from the show. Every story, at its heart, is about people, because people love stories about people.
Be true to your characters and let them write the story for you. It's more satisfying for you, and more satisfying for your readers.
December 27, 2014
On the importance of Experimentation
I don't plot novels. That is not to say that plotting a novel is a bad thing or that it's the wrong way to write a book. Everyone has their own process and plotting has never been part of mine.
The way that my process works is pretty simple. It usually starts with a little grain of an idea (sometimes a what-if question; sometimes a picture that I see in my head) and then I sit down and begin writing. I let the story take me where it wants to go and I go along for the ride.
I think it's good to have a certain routine for how you do things, but you can't let that routine bleed into your writing or else you will simply write the same thing over and over again.
There is a lot of room in writing for experimentation. You can change the tense, you can change the point of view, you can write a book in third person or first person. All of these are just tricks of the trade though. It's the equivalent of a different camera angle in a movie. If a director made the same movie twice and changed the camera angles it wouldn't change the overall story. It would only shift your perspective slightly.
The real experimentation that keeps your writing fresh is by writing about subject matters and genres that scare you. Things you aren't quite sure if you can pull off or not.
As an example, after the new year I will begin work on a general fiction work that follows the turbulent life of a single person. It is partially based on the life of my father and partially based on the life of my wife's father. It is fiction, but many of the stories are things that I've heard about both of their lives.
This is an ambitious project, and likely a longer one than I have ever attempted. I've had this idea in my head for almost two years but I have put off writing it because I didn't believe that I possessed the narrative power to bring it to life in the way that it exists in my head.
But that kind of procrastination is the enemy of creativity. Basically, I figured that it was time to stop screwing around and finally test myself.
It's also important to be flexible with your process, as different types of stories may require different approaches.
I realized that this book was too complex to write in my normal way. The threads of the story could too easily get tangled and distorted. So I have decided that I will plot this novel.
It's an interesting process and easier than I would have imagined. Though that's probably because I've been writing the story in my head for two years.
The point is this: it's easy to become stuck in a rut. It's easy to find success with doing something a certain way and continuing to do it.
The hard part is challenging yourself, making yourself better.
Don't go for the easy route. It's safe, but the challenge is so much more rewarding.
The way that my process works is pretty simple. It usually starts with a little grain of an idea (sometimes a what-if question; sometimes a picture that I see in my head) and then I sit down and begin writing. I let the story take me where it wants to go and I go along for the ride.
I think it's good to have a certain routine for how you do things, but you can't let that routine bleed into your writing or else you will simply write the same thing over and over again.
There is a lot of room in writing for experimentation. You can change the tense, you can change the point of view, you can write a book in third person or first person. All of these are just tricks of the trade though. It's the equivalent of a different camera angle in a movie. If a director made the same movie twice and changed the camera angles it wouldn't change the overall story. It would only shift your perspective slightly.
The real experimentation that keeps your writing fresh is by writing about subject matters and genres that scare you. Things you aren't quite sure if you can pull off or not.
As an example, after the new year I will begin work on a general fiction work that follows the turbulent life of a single person. It is partially based on the life of my father and partially based on the life of my wife's father. It is fiction, but many of the stories are things that I've heard about both of their lives.
This is an ambitious project, and likely a longer one than I have ever attempted. I've had this idea in my head for almost two years but I have put off writing it because I didn't believe that I possessed the narrative power to bring it to life in the way that it exists in my head.
But that kind of procrastination is the enemy of creativity. Basically, I figured that it was time to stop screwing around and finally test myself.
It's also important to be flexible with your process, as different types of stories may require different approaches.
I realized that this book was too complex to write in my normal way. The threads of the story could too easily get tangled and distorted. So I have decided that I will plot this novel.
It's an interesting process and easier than I would have imagined. Though that's probably because I've been writing the story in my head for two years.
The point is this: it's easy to become stuck in a rut. It's easy to find success with doing something a certain way and continuing to do it.
The hard part is challenging yourself, making yourself better.
Don't go for the easy route. It's safe, but the challenge is so much more rewarding.
December 8, 2014
On the importance of Jealousy
Salon
The link above is to a very interesting excerpt from Peter Toohey's book Jealousy. It was printed by Salon.com and is definitely worth a read.
Mr. Toohey brings up several examples of jealousy--some ancient, the others more recent--but it's not the specific examples that I want to talk about today, but two concepts that are lightly brushed on in the excerpt.
The first is jealousy exhibited by writers against one another. The form that this type of jealousy usually takes is by up and coming writers against popular, long-standing authors.
The older authors usually have a larger fanbase and more success than those attempting to break into the business. I suppose that this situation could lend itself to an atmosphere of jealousy, and there probably are several young and jealous writers.
I urge all young writers to not be jealous. There are two reasons for this. One, it does no good, and two, if you are a good enough writer, your time will come.
It's really that simple. There is a lot of luck in becoming a mega writer like J.K. Rowling and making more money than you could ever know what to do with. That might not happen for you. But if you are talented enough you will find an audience. That audience should be enough to allow you to support yourself and your family.
And, morbid as it is, honestly sooner or later the older writers are going to die off. When they are gone something is going to have to fill in the void. That something will be new, younger writers. It's just the way of the world.
However, I do not think that most young writers are jealous of the old guard. I know I'm certainly not. Sometimes it is unavoidable to feel a twinge when reading something truly great and thinking (or knowing) that you will never be able to write something that wonderful. Yet, you can't go through life comparing yourself to other writers. The art of crafting a story is unique to each person and the process involved is rarely the same for any two people. Our ends might be similar (we both produce a novel at the end of the process) but the journey is completely different. When I am composing I'm thinking about my characters and my world, not how it would stack up against another author's work.
The second kind of jealousy touched on in the excerpt is fan jealousy.
I know I'm in the minority of people that have fans (and somehow I do) when I say that I think fans should feel entitled.
Now let me specify. There's a quote from Wil Wheaton in the article about an incident that he went through where fans camped out at his hotel and separated him from his friends to try and hound him. A woman even threatened to expose him on Twitter as a bad person if he didn't give her an autograph. This isn't the same as fans feeling a connection to a story or a character. This is just people being fanatics.
What I'm talking about are the people who feel entitled that an author finish a book series that they started. Or feel entitled to a satisfying ending to a book, or those who think their favorite television show is being ruined. As a Dexter fan, I know how that feels.
There is some backlash amongst my colleagues that these fans are pushing things too far. They, the writers, are the creators of their worlds and they are the only ones who hold dominion over such. But that just isn't the case. Writers like Stephen King and J.K. Rowling have made millions from their fans. Producers and writers of television shows also make a large amount of money. Money is only a small piece of the puzzle, although I do believe that when a fanbase allows you to make a very good living from your creativity than you do owe them something.
The bigger issue is the fact that you have let your story go out into the world. Once you expose it to the light of day it is no longer just yours. The story can only be yours when you are sitting at that computer and making it. If you don't want to hear what the fans have to say, if you don't want to deal with the backlash from an unsatisfying turn of events in one of your stories, then I have a simple piece of advice for you. Never publish anything.
If you never get a fanbase then you will never have to deal with their demands. If, however, you want to share what you've done with others (and maybe make some money doing it) then you will also have to accept the possibility that those fans will have something to say to you.
Now, that doesn't mean you should change the course of your story because of something a fan said to you. However, if you're disappointing your entire fanbase, you might be doing something wrong. It is human for people to make mistakes and writers are no different. If there was some magical font that produced perfect ideas then there would be no need for writers. Anyone could make a story.
The ability to create a story is a wonderful thing, but it is not a superpower, and writers are not supermen. Nor does your work exist in a vacuum (unless you really do decide to never put it out there) but in a world where other people can judge it and talk about it.
If you do your job well you will be rewarded for it and your fans will be happy. If you do your job poorly than people are going to complain. And if you lose your edge you can be sure you'll hear about it. Only fools ignore their fans.
Don't be a fool.
The link above is to a very interesting excerpt from Peter Toohey's book Jealousy. It was printed by Salon.com and is definitely worth a read.
Mr. Toohey brings up several examples of jealousy--some ancient, the others more recent--but it's not the specific examples that I want to talk about today, but two concepts that are lightly brushed on in the excerpt.
The first is jealousy exhibited by writers against one another. The form that this type of jealousy usually takes is by up and coming writers against popular, long-standing authors.
The older authors usually have a larger fanbase and more success than those attempting to break into the business. I suppose that this situation could lend itself to an atmosphere of jealousy, and there probably are several young and jealous writers.
I urge all young writers to not be jealous. There are two reasons for this. One, it does no good, and two, if you are a good enough writer, your time will come.
It's really that simple. There is a lot of luck in becoming a mega writer like J.K. Rowling and making more money than you could ever know what to do with. That might not happen for you. But if you are talented enough you will find an audience. That audience should be enough to allow you to support yourself and your family.
And, morbid as it is, honestly sooner or later the older writers are going to die off. When they are gone something is going to have to fill in the void. That something will be new, younger writers. It's just the way of the world.
However, I do not think that most young writers are jealous of the old guard. I know I'm certainly not. Sometimes it is unavoidable to feel a twinge when reading something truly great and thinking (or knowing) that you will never be able to write something that wonderful. Yet, you can't go through life comparing yourself to other writers. The art of crafting a story is unique to each person and the process involved is rarely the same for any two people. Our ends might be similar (we both produce a novel at the end of the process) but the journey is completely different. When I am composing I'm thinking about my characters and my world, not how it would stack up against another author's work.
The second kind of jealousy touched on in the excerpt is fan jealousy.
I know I'm in the minority of people that have fans (and somehow I do) when I say that I think fans should feel entitled.
Now let me specify. There's a quote from Wil Wheaton in the article about an incident that he went through where fans camped out at his hotel and separated him from his friends to try and hound him. A woman even threatened to expose him on Twitter as a bad person if he didn't give her an autograph. This isn't the same as fans feeling a connection to a story or a character. This is just people being fanatics.
What I'm talking about are the people who feel entitled that an author finish a book series that they started. Or feel entitled to a satisfying ending to a book, or those who think their favorite television show is being ruined. As a Dexter fan, I know how that feels.
There is some backlash amongst my colleagues that these fans are pushing things too far. They, the writers, are the creators of their worlds and they are the only ones who hold dominion over such. But that just isn't the case. Writers like Stephen King and J.K. Rowling have made millions from their fans. Producers and writers of television shows also make a large amount of money. Money is only a small piece of the puzzle, although I do believe that when a fanbase allows you to make a very good living from your creativity than you do owe them something.
The bigger issue is the fact that you have let your story go out into the world. Once you expose it to the light of day it is no longer just yours. The story can only be yours when you are sitting at that computer and making it. If you don't want to hear what the fans have to say, if you don't want to deal with the backlash from an unsatisfying turn of events in one of your stories, then I have a simple piece of advice for you. Never publish anything.
If you never get a fanbase then you will never have to deal with their demands. If, however, you want to share what you've done with others (and maybe make some money doing it) then you will also have to accept the possibility that those fans will have something to say to you.
Now, that doesn't mean you should change the course of your story because of something a fan said to you. However, if you're disappointing your entire fanbase, you might be doing something wrong. It is human for people to make mistakes and writers are no different. If there was some magical font that produced perfect ideas then there would be no need for writers. Anyone could make a story.
The ability to create a story is a wonderful thing, but it is not a superpower, and writers are not supermen. Nor does your work exist in a vacuum (unless you really do decide to never put it out there) but in a world where other people can judge it and talk about it.
If you do your job well you will be rewarded for it and your fans will be happy. If you do your job poorly than people are going to complain. And if you lose your edge you can be sure you'll hear about it. Only fools ignore their fans.
Don't be a fool.
December 6, 2014
On the importance of Opinion
Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they usually stink.
The above quote (old enough, almost, to be called an adage) doesn't hold opinions in very high esteem. The irony, of course, is that it is expressing an opinion while it is doing it.
There is one thing true about the statement, however. We do all have opinions.
Part of your writing is going to be informed by your opinions. And that is right and good, because despite what some think, I think it's a good thing to have opinions.
Having an opinion means that you're thinking. Now not all opinions are going to be based on actual facts, and that can be problematic, but even this can be understood and forgiven. The problem comes in when we cleave to our opinions so strongly that nothing--not even a sound argument--can shake our opinions.
As I said before, your writing will contain a lot of your personal opinion and that is a good thing. Writing a novel can take anywhere from one month to several years to write. Spending that much time on something should mean something. Pouring your heart and soul into a project should mean something. Part of that meaning is usually expressed through your own world view.
All this is good, but it can go too far. You must never forget that your number one job is to tell a story. The people didn't come for a lecture on the over-reach of government or your stance on abortion. They came to be entertained. They are looking to you for a story.
Opinion is great when used as part of the tapestry of your book. It shouldn't become ubiquitous. That certainly would stink.
The above quote (old enough, almost, to be called an adage) doesn't hold opinions in very high esteem. The irony, of course, is that it is expressing an opinion while it is doing it.
There is one thing true about the statement, however. We do all have opinions.
Part of your writing is going to be informed by your opinions. And that is right and good, because despite what some think, I think it's a good thing to have opinions.
Having an opinion means that you're thinking. Now not all opinions are going to be based on actual facts, and that can be problematic, but even this can be understood and forgiven. The problem comes in when we cleave to our opinions so strongly that nothing--not even a sound argument--can shake our opinions.
As I said before, your writing will contain a lot of your personal opinion and that is a good thing. Writing a novel can take anywhere from one month to several years to write. Spending that much time on something should mean something. Pouring your heart and soul into a project should mean something. Part of that meaning is usually expressed through your own world view.
All this is good, but it can go too far. You must never forget that your number one job is to tell a story. The people didn't come for a lecture on the over-reach of government or your stance on abortion. They came to be entertained. They are looking to you for a story.
Opinion is great when used as part of the tapestry of your book. It shouldn't become ubiquitous. That certainly would stink.
November 24, 2014
On the importance of Family
With this holiday season approaching I felt it was time to talk about family a little bit.
They are vastly important to the life of a writer. Not only are they a support system and a constant source of encouragement in a profession that is designed to crush your spirit, but they are also important to shaping you as a person and a writer.
I'm sure that many of you--like me--have used fictionalized incidents from your youth in books. The first types of personalities that we witness are that of our family. These traits help make up some of the characters in our own stories.
Thomas Wolfe famously wrote, You Can't Go Home Again, which details his return to his hometown after the success of his first novel. The book was based on his friends and neighbors (and yes, his family) and it was not a glowing depiction. As you might expect the homecoming (both in the book and in real life) was not a very warm one.
I know my wife sometimes gets a little peeved at me when I include some small snippet of our life into a book. Though I've never dug as deep as Wolfe did. I would probably be divorced if I did.
She takes it all in stride though. The same way, I suppose, that a comedian's wife will take the personal jokes in stride.
Creativity is not a magical power. It's a tunnel that connects the dream life with the real life. To construct this tunnel, you need experiences from your own life.
I would just suggest that any writers out there take a lesson from Thomas Wolfe and not reveal too much when you're building your tunnel.
So during this Thanksgiving season, instead of rolling your eyes at the thought of your Aunt Edna or Uncle Mort coming to visit, turn on your powers of observation and figure out what kind of unique outlook they have. What is it that makes them so weird?
You never know, a small bit of their personality could really add to that character that just seems lifeless.
One more note before I go: Before the Mask (a prequel to Beneath the Mask of Sanity) is going very well. Almost halfway through and feeling very good about things.
This book will examine the psyche of Bentley in a little more detail and give some clues as to why he is the killer we meet at the beginning of Beneath the Mask of Sanity. I hope that you will all love it.
On that note, have a great Thanksgiving everyone and thank you for continuing to read.
They are vastly important to the life of a writer. Not only are they a support system and a constant source of encouragement in a profession that is designed to crush your spirit, but they are also important to shaping you as a person and a writer.
I'm sure that many of you--like me--have used fictionalized incidents from your youth in books. The first types of personalities that we witness are that of our family. These traits help make up some of the characters in our own stories.
Thomas Wolfe famously wrote, You Can't Go Home Again, which details his return to his hometown after the success of his first novel. The book was based on his friends and neighbors (and yes, his family) and it was not a glowing depiction. As you might expect the homecoming (both in the book and in real life) was not a very warm one.
I know my wife sometimes gets a little peeved at me when I include some small snippet of our life into a book. Though I've never dug as deep as Wolfe did. I would probably be divorced if I did.
She takes it all in stride though. The same way, I suppose, that a comedian's wife will take the personal jokes in stride.
Creativity is not a magical power. It's a tunnel that connects the dream life with the real life. To construct this tunnel, you need experiences from your own life.
I would just suggest that any writers out there take a lesson from Thomas Wolfe and not reveal too much when you're building your tunnel.
So during this Thanksgiving season, instead of rolling your eyes at the thought of your Aunt Edna or Uncle Mort coming to visit, turn on your powers of observation and figure out what kind of unique outlook they have. What is it that makes them so weird?
You never know, a small bit of their personality could really add to that character that just seems lifeless.
One more note before I go: Before the Mask (a prequel to Beneath the Mask of Sanity) is going very well. Almost halfway through and feeling very good about things.
This book will examine the psyche of Bentley in a little more detail and give some clues as to why he is the killer we meet at the beginning of Beneath the Mask of Sanity. I hope that you will all love it.
On that note, have a great Thanksgiving everyone and thank you for continuing to read.
November 15, 2014
On the importance of Influence
I just finished reading Stephen King's newest novel, Revival.
I won't ruin anything for anyone who wants to read it, but I will say that you can see the heavy influence of H.P. Lovecraft, Mary Shelley and the novel The Great God Pan in the book.
There are writers out there who scorn such things. They feel that when a book is inspired by another piece of fiction or if the influence is clearly seen (as it is in King's book) that it is a kind of thievery. Almost like a cheat.
"Not original," they will say.
I have spoken to writers who flatly refuse to read any books while they are working on a novel for fear that some kind of influence with drip its way into their masterpiece.
I'm sorry to tell them that the influence is there whether you know it or not.
Nor is this something that writers should feel ashamed of.
Does the scientist who makes great breakthroughs feel ashamed because his work was inspired by Newton and Einstein? Do the architects of today feel embarrassed when their work is compared to Frank Lloyd Wright?
I can't say for certain, but I think that the answer to both those questions is no.
Yet, when it comes to the creative arts there seems to be a thought that unless what you're doing is wholly original then it is useless and recycled drivel.
I won't argue that there is some recycled drivel out there (there's a difference between being inspired and just ripping someone off) but I think those books are the exception rather than the rule.
I can't speak for others, but I know when I wanted to start to write books. I had read The Indian in the Cupboard and had moved on to The Hardy Boys. I was a year or two away from discovering Stephen King and Ernest Hemingway.
Reading those Hardy Boys books gave me such pleasure that I knew I wanted to give that feeling to others. A lot of my early stories (written when I was about ten-years-old) were barely more than copies of what I was currently reading.
As I grew older, and read more widely, I developed my own style. I perfected my own voice.
That voice is what I think scares the writers who are afraid of being influenced. Because Revival, while clearly inspired by Lovecraft, is without a doubt a Stephen King novel. His voice is there, loud and clear.
You see, when I began to gain my voice as a writer even the imitations I wrote came out different. They were still far too close for comfort from a legal standpoint but they no longer read like the Hardy Boys books I read. They had become my own creations.
As I wrote more I began to generate my own ideas. Some were inspired by things I read, some by things I saw on television or the movies and some by things that I wondered about.
Do I feel ashamed that I wrote things that were inspired by the work of others? I do not.
Because while my own unique experience has shaped the ideas I have and the things that I like reading about, it's my voice as a writer that allows me to share it all with you from my point of view.
Don't be afraid to be influenced. If it weren't for those who came before us then none of us would be here now.
I won't ruin anything for anyone who wants to read it, but I will say that you can see the heavy influence of H.P. Lovecraft, Mary Shelley and the novel The Great God Pan in the book.
There are writers out there who scorn such things. They feel that when a book is inspired by another piece of fiction or if the influence is clearly seen (as it is in King's book) that it is a kind of thievery. Almost like a cheat.
"Not original," they will say.
I have spoken to writers who flatly refuse to read any books while they are working on a novel for fear that some kind of influence with drip its way into their masterpiece.
I'm sorry to tell them that the influence is there whether you know it or not.
Nor is this something that writers should feel ashamed of.
Does the scientist who makes great breakthroughs feel ashamed because his work was inspired by Newton and Einstein? Do the architects of today feel embarrassed when their work is compared to Frank Lloyd Wright?
I can't say for certain, but I think that the answer to both those questions is no.
Yet, when it comes to the creative arts there seems to be a thought that unless what you're doing is wholly original then it is useless and recycled drivel.
I won't argue that there is some recycled drivel out there (there's a difference between being inspired and just ripping someone off) but I think those books are the exception rather than the rule.
I can't speak for others, but I know when I wanted to start to write books. I had read The Indian in the Cupboard and had moved on to The Hardy Boys. I was a year or two away from discovering Stephen King and Ernest Hemingway.
Reading those Hardy Boys books gave me such pleasure that I knew I wanted to give that feeling to others. A lot of my early stories (written when I was about ten-years-old) were barely more than copies of what I was currently reading.
As I grew older, and read more widely, I developed my own style. I perfected my own voice.
That voice is what I think scares the writers who are afraid of being influenced. Because Revival, while clearly inspired by Lovecraft, is without a doubt a Stephen King novel. His voice is there, loud and clear.
You see, when I began to gain my voice as a writer even the imitations I wrote came out different. They were still far too close for comfort from a legal standpoint but they no longer read like the Hardy Boys books I read. They had become my own creations.
As I wrote more I began to generate my own ideas. Some were inspired by things I read, some by things I saw on television or the movies and some by things that I wondered about.
Do I feel ashamed that I wrote things that were inspired by the work of others? I do not.
Because while my own unique experience has shaped the ideas I have and the things that I like reading about, it's my voice as a writer that allows me to share it all with you from my point of view.
Don't be afraid to be influenced. If it weren't for those who came before us then none of us would be here now.
November 7, 2014
On the importance of Life
First, an apology to those of you who read my blog regularly. What can I say other than life got in the way. Also, I had a nasty cold, which everyone in the house also got and my wife and I had children to take care of.
That being said, the vacation is over and the writing will now resume.
I've read a lot of books recently that trend towards the "new adult" genre lines. Books that explore the emotional upheaval of going off to college or starting your career and being on your own for the first time in your life.
There is value in these kinds of stories, to be sure. It's a turbulent time and a rite of passage that all of us go through. That final push from someone's child to becoming your own person.
Many of the authors that I've been reading are "new adults" themselves. Most of them are indie authors, and I've discovered something: most of them don't understand real life very well.
A good amount of these books were written with one foot planted firmly in the internet. Short, staccato sentences aimed at instant gratification. Cliched situations, easy resolutions. Not much in the way of how actual people would react in real situations.
It's easy to understand why: the next generation is losing their ability to understand humanity.
I suppose that's a bold statement, and I don't have any hard and fast evidence to point to, but it is what I believe.
We talk about it enough in our society: being on the computer all the time, being addicted to our phones, the lack of personal contact.
These things are breeding a generation of writers that don't understand simple human interaction. That is a frightening thing.
At its core, writing is merely telling a story with words, but it's also about expression your slant on the world around you and the people in it. When we sit down at the computer to type our story we have something to say. Sure, there are books that's main motivation is to entertain, but even they have something to say about the world.
The problem is in order to write convincingly about the world and about people you have to experience those things. Young writers are not getting enough experience with having an actual conversation.
My suggestion is that those of you who are aspiring to be writers leave your phone at home for a day. Go out into the world and have a conversation with someone you meet. Unplug just for a little while. Discover people around you. Think of it as research if you have to.
We can only find the humanity in ourselves when we open up to the humanity in those around us.
The big, bad technology that will destroy us is already here. It's google, it's Facebook, it's the internet. But it won't end humanity because it becomes self aware and we can't control it. It will destroy us because we can't control ourselves.
That being said, the vacation is over and the writing will now resume.
I've read a lot of books recently that trend towards the "new adult" genre lines. Books that explore the emotional upheaval of going off to college or starting your career and being on your own for the first time in your life.
There is value in these kinds of stories, to be sure. It's a turbulent time and a rite of passage that all of us go through. That final push from someone's child to becoming your own person.
Many of the authors that I've been reading are "new adults" themselves. Most of them are indie authors, and I've discovered something: most of them don't understand real life very well.
A good amount of these books were written with one foot planted firmly in the internet. Short, staccato sentences aimed at instant gratification. Cliched situations, easy resolutions. Not much in the way of how actual people would react in real situations.
It's easy to understand why: the next generation is losing their ability to understand humanity.
I suppose that's a bold statement, and I don't have any hard and fast evidence to point to, but it is what I believe.
We talk about it enough in our society: being on the computer all the time, being addicted to our phones, the lack of personal contact.
These things are breeding a generation of writers that don't understand simple human interaction. That is a frightening thing.
At its core, writing is merely telling a story with words, but it's also about expression your slant on the world around you and the people in it. When we sit down at the computer to type our story we have something to say. Sure, there are books that's main motivation is to entertain, but even they have something to say about the world.
The problem is in order to write convincingly about the world and about people you have to experience those things. Young writers are not getting enough experience with having an actual conversation.
My suggestion is that those of you who are aspiring to be writers leave your phone at home for a day. Go out into the world and have a conversation with someone you meet. Unplug just for a little while. Discover people around you. Think of it as research if you have to.
We can only find the humanity in ourselves when we open up to the humanity in those around us.
The big, bad technology that will destroy us is already here. It's google, it's Facebook, it's the internet. But it won't end humanity because it becomes self aware and we can't control it. It will destroy us because we can't control ourselves.
