J.B. Garner's Blog, page 64

Finding Perspective: First person vs. third person

Stories have been told since the dawn of human civilization and the impact of those stories have often hinged on the perspective used to tell those stories.  By perspective, I mean what form of point-of-view (PoV) is taken in the piece.  Each PoV brings its own unique advantages and disadvantages.  As I often say, I don’t put myself forth as an expert but I still think sharing my views on some of the common PoVs from which we write might be helpful to others and, at the least, perhaps engender a discussion of their use.  The three PoVs I’ve personally used the most are the first person, the third person limited, and the third person omniscient, and each are very distinct, even the two third person variants.

 

First up, the first person (clever, I know)!  This is certainly the most intimate of storytelling styles because it is told from the viewpoint of the narrator.  It allows the reader to truly get inside of the head of the PoV character, to gain deep insights into their actions, motivations, and perceptions.  This can be great for getting your readers to strongly identify with the main character of your story and the world they live in, as well as retain a sense of mystery in a new situation.  The information is filtered to the reader as it comes to the narrator, allowing a mystery to be preserved for longer.

 

The problems with the first person PoV mainly center around authorial mistakes.  It is easy to run into a repetitious writing style in the first person, especially sentences in the form of ‘I …’.  Tense mistakes can be common, especially if the writer attempts a first person present piece.  Let’s not even talk about the potential continuity errors that can be rife in a present tense piece.  Because we are trapped behind one character’s eyes at a time, other issues can crop up.  As with the ‘I

 

The third person PoVs, limited and omniscient, share a common base.  They are told from a perspective outside the narrator.  This can allow for a greater ease in telling a tale and setting a scene, as the writer isn’t limited to the perceptions of one singular character.  He can describe the entire scene, expand upon foreshadowing, cut away to sideline scenes more easily, and so on.  Of course, at the same time, we are deprived of the intense intimacy the first person PoV can give us.  The author is forced to work harder to make us like and identify with the characters as we are not directly in their head.  Past these commonalities, the two flavors of third person vary considerably.

 

The third person limited form is told in the third person, but there are limitations placed on the reader’s insights, most often in limiting the insights on character thought and motivation.  Most often, the writer handles this by establishing (and often shifting through a piece) a viewpoint character.  Though this character is handled in the third person, the writer chronicles much of their thoughts, feelings, and internal conflicts as if it were a first person piece.  This allows the writer to take back some of the advantages of the first person format (easier characterization, some limits on information flow to preserve mystery and surprises) while retaining the third person format’s strengths in description and flexibility.

 

The primary flaw of this is the obvious jack-of-all-trades style of it.  It gives up part of the immense flexibility of omniscient pieces but doesn’t gain the full intimacy of the first person form.  Also, if the author’s work has many PoV characters to switch between, it is of vital importance that he keeps a close watch on continuity to prevent lapses when bouncing from viewpoint to viewpoint.  Despite these problems, third person limited is one of the most commonly used viewpoints I have seen, mainly because of it’s ease of use and overall strength in storytelling.

 

Our final topic for today is the third person omniscient PoV.  It works just like it says on the box, combining the third person storytelling style with a narrator of infinite knowledge.  At any point, the author can speak of the thoughts and perceptions of any character without shifting point of view or worrying about continuity errors.  At it’s simplest, many old style fairy tales and children’s stories work from this perspective, as well as many myths.  Historical works and stories on a grand scale can also benefit from this technique.  All of these kinds of works often work in an epic scale or tackle immense subjects where there is a need to be able to recount events in large brushstrokes, yet still able to focus on personal subjects when needed.

 

The problem with taking this omniscient style is simple.  The risk of reader detachment is far greater.  Much like some people find reading a history book boring, you can have that same issue with this writing style.  The lack of a PoV character can lessen reader investment and, if the plot is also complicated, make the story harder for them to navigate.  You never want your reader so lacking in emotional investment that he doesn’t care if he reads on or not.

 

There are undoubtedly other writing PoVs to work with.  Do you use one of these, or something different?  I’d love to hear what your thoughts are.  If you’re just a reader, what kind of PoVs do you see in the books you read?  Which do you like and why?  Discuss in the comments!

Anxiety: A True Enemy of the Writer

As you know and will probably get sick of hearing about, I have started a Kickstarter to raise funds for furthering my writing (insert cheap plug here).  What I didn’t mention about it was that it took a tremendous amount of nerve to actually click the ‘Start campaign’ button.  You might think that strange.  After all, in essence, Kickstarter is a no-risk venture, the worst that can happen is you don’t make your goal and don’t make any money.

 

The thing is, there IS a risk, a very big one: a risk to my ego, my sense of self-worth.  That may sound like the start of a pity party, but consider that, for a serious author, their writing is drawn from themselves.  It’s a tapestry woven from heartstrings and bits of our souls.  In essence, an author puts themselves on the line whenever they write and present it forth for the public.  If the masses recoil in horror or, perhaps worse, ignore the works they see, what message does that send to the author?  In essence, it is a judgement on the worth of the author and the work they have poured themselves into.

 

Now, we come to the title of this piece.  Anxiety, fear of the future, can be a crippling roadblock to a writer.  The moment a writer (or any artist really) puts their work out for the public to see, they put their souls on display.  It is understandable why so many people dabble in writing but never become more than that.  It’s not just the financial risks (though there are plenty of those) or any social stigma; there is the very real fear of rejection of that very real part of you by others.  That anxiety can be so crippling that you never hit that ‘Publish’ button or the ‘Start campaign’ one.  Your finger creeps back and you tell yourself that you just can’t do it.

 

All we can do as writers, creators, and readers is to encourage us to try.  We have to support each other to fight through the anxiety, to pick ourselves up after every failed attempt, and keep going.  Every rejection letter, every abrasive comment, every blank look from those who just don’t care, those are the slings and arrows we have to help each other to get past.  Fear can be overcome.  We do it every time we put pen to paper to write a new first chapter or scribe the first line of a play or the opening stanza of a poem.  Let’s not stop now.

The Kickstarter! It has begun!

Here it is, the link to the Kickstarter!

Yes, it’s true.  I have taken the crowdsourcing plunge in an effort to make self-publishing work, spread the word about my books, and to bring both trilogies to a triumphant close.

I mean, sure, on the surface, it looks like publishing an e-book is simple.  You don’t have to *technically* pay for editors, artwork, or publishing fees.  You just feed your self-edited and self-formatted manuscript in along with some Photoshop art and BAM!  Instant gratification.

The truth that any serious writer knows is that it is far from easy and it is far from free.  E-books especially, but all books really, live or die on their cover art to catch people into shelling out the money in the first place.  A writer is his/her own worst editor … the human mind is easy to cover gaps or unscramble typos when that mind knows what the intention is.  Other than some moments of front page coverage on the various e-book sites as you come into stock, they themselves do little to no advertising for you.  From genesis to publication, it all rests on the author’s shoulders.

What that means is that, while indie publication has certainly come a long way in accessibility and cost than it has in the past, it’s still a difficult, risky, and, at times, pricey proposition.  Hence, Kickstarter.

I would ask all of you that follow this blog to check it out.  If you have the ability to do so and like my work, please contribute what you can.  If you like my work but can’t afford to contribute, please spread the word to those who might.

Thank you!

Morality and Motivation: Balancing ethical choices and realistic motivations

I write in fictional genres that classically lend themselves to a very old school ‘black vs. white’ mentality.  The truth is, though, that is boring and unrealistic.  It’s not that I don’t see morality and ethics as realistic, it is simply that the human mind doesn’t usually work in absolutes.  Even people we would consider to be saintly are not pure white in motivation and action and even the most vicious murderer is often found to have strangely positive points in their personality.  The human psyche is far too complex for such absolute moral stances.

 

In fact, it could be argued that the best conflicts in any piece, no matter how action-packed, comes from the inner turmoil of a good person faced with decisions with no clear positive outcome.  The classic ‘choosing the lesser of two evils’ situation can not only make for great drama, but tell more about a character’s mental state and moral compass than pages of ‘telling’ and pontificating.  The key, I would say, is to make sure such choice points themselves are not contrived or unrealistic.  If it all happens in the flow of the story, it will make for a dramatic and defining character moment.

 

At the end of the day, it’s the oft-repeated advice to make every hero have flaws and to make every villain have positive points.  I think the truth is a bit more nuanced though.  I think it could be valid to have a character that truly is so evil as to be irredeemable, but there must be a process to make a person that way.  That process has to come out, and in that process you can make a, for instance, heartless serial killer with no good qualities be shown to have once had them.  To show how that morality was purged by a spiraling series of no-win choices, the influence of other darker figures, and/or the occasional whim of fate could also be a fascinating addition to the story.  Much like you can show a protagonist’s rise through dramatic struggle, you can show the moral fall of an antagonist in the same way.

 

Maybe what I’m ultimately pontificating about is the simple act of not making characters faceless cutouts representing the archetype you need to fulfill your plot.  Archetypes aren’t by their nature bad; in fact, they represent vital tools in the writer’s bag.  It is the blank archetypes that can weaken an otherwise fantastic tale until it crumbles, unable to be supported by a base of cardboard cutouts.  Remember, for most types of stories, the characters create and support the plot, not the other way around.

Quick Weekend Update: Release schedules and perhaps a Kickstarter

Quick notes, as I’m trying to nurse a headache and spend time with the family.

 

First: I won’t be hitting my preferred end-of-August release for Indefatigable and The Tale of the Tape, but for a good reason.  My work with new cover artist Felipe Barros (check his portfolio out) is involved enough that the project to for all four new covers is going to run into September.   Sure, I would love to get the books out sooner but, at the same time, the quality will be so much better.  Good things are worth the effort, right?  I’m contemplating, though, updating the first books to their second edition content before the covers are ready, just as a service to those who have already bought the books.

 

Second: I’ve been working the past week on a Kickstarter, both for additional funds to finish out the two series and to fund advertising, convention fees, and an amount of physical publishing.  I still need to do a bit of work, mainly finishing financial stuff and doing a project video, but this could happen within the week.   You’ll hear about it here first when it happens.

 

Thanks for reading, thanks for the support, and enjoy your weekend!

Back to Writing: Event-driven plots vs. Character-driven plots

So, today, I’m beginning the outlining work on my next book as I wait for beta readers and editors to do their thing.  That being the case, plot is on my mind and it made me start thinking about the nature of plots in general.  Now, my musings are nowhere near comprehensive but, at least in the context of what I’m now working on, I pondered two different methods of plotting: event-driven versus character-driven.

 

The meanings of the terms are pretty straight-forward, if you’re not already familiar with them.  Event-driven plots are plots where the conflict is caused by specific events which occur outside of the actions of the characters.  A novel written around a natural disaster would be a perfect example.  Character-driven plots are plots where the actions of the characters generate the conflicts that move the story along.  A heist novel would be a great example of this.  Both types of plots have valid uses, so it comes down to deciding which is best for the story you want to tell.

 

At first blush, event-driven plots seem to showcase the central event as the ‘main character’.  This is true in some cases; there are books and films where something as esoteric as a deadly virus can have a fully realized character arc.  It can also be used to shine a light on variances at human character as a wide slice of character types react and change because of the event.  A series of plot-driving events could also be used as part of a character-driven plot to provide catalysts for character action that then spin off into a completely character-driven plot.

 

What’s important to realize is that event-driven plots aren’t event-driven if the ‘events’ in question are caused by the actions of another character (at least a character that is part of the novel’s cast).  A childhood murder (to steal a Batman moment) could be considered an ‘event’ if the murderer is not part of the plot from that point on, but if the murderer and his actions have a hand in the larger plot, then it could be simply another character-driven plot point.  Is it really important to the writing process to know the difference between these two approaches to plot?

 

I think so.  It mainly shows up in the style of the writing.  Event-driven writing, by it’s nature, introduces a certain immutability about the events that drive the plot.  The characters mold around the events instead of directly influencing them.  Again, this is great depending on the type of novel you are writing, but it can be horrible for other works.  The problem comes in when a writer intends to write, let’s say, a character-driven piece but then has every motivating event that occurs be an immutable thing that doesn’t derive from any character’s action.  Often times, this is simply a matter of clunky plotting: a certain character’s actions are treated as immutable events that never alter from the actions or reactions of other character’s.  In essence, those actions become ‘acts of God’ and there suddenly is not interplay between those actions and the reactions of the rest of the cast.  In a character-driven piece, this is suicide.

 

I suppose the ultimate point I’m making is that I’ve learned to try to be careful when plotting and writing a piece to keep in mind what you are trying to do and where you want the focus to lie.  It’s easy to make a few slips that turn the focus of something away from the intended target.  What do you think?  Do you consider how you plot something to be important in the execution of a piece?  Do you prefer to write based around events or around characters?  Let me know!

 

P.S. I’m always open for more beta readers.  If you want to get first crack at all of my current and future books, this is your chance!  Who can argue with free books, right?

A Political Moment: Freedom isn’t free, people

I wanted to write, as I usually do, about aspects of the writing process and challenges I have faced during that process.

I can’t.  Not today.

You see, in my country right now, supposedly a bastion of freedom, there is a lot of injustice.  There is a lot of oppression.  Crime, violence, death, ignorance, racism, all sadly stocked and discounted.  Plenty for everyone, step right up!  What is the most appalling part about it, though, is to see so many people, normal citizens as far as I can tell, who comment on the news in forums, on websites, on news articles, who are apologists for such things.

When other people rightfully respond with outrage after militarized police stalk our streets or an unarmed man is murdered while surrendering or police choke and kill a man on camera, they come out of the woodwork.  They tell us that ‘anger never solved anything’ and ‘speaking out against the government is a serious crime’ and ‘let the police handle it’ and ‘the cops wouldn’t need all that gear if everyone was peaceful’ and so on.  People like that are ignorant, not only of human nature but our country’s history.

The United States of America is a country that was founded by rebellion.  It was founded by sedition.  It was founded by treason.  Most vitally, the U.S.A. was founded by people who stood up against what they say was injustice and tyranny and realized that the system would never change until they took drastic action.  At the end of the day, when that kind of injustice rises once again, that kind of action needs to be taken again.

The phrase ‘freedom is not free’ was originally coined to honor the volunteer armed forces of my country and it still applies there.  I feel it is also applicable to the general concept of freedom.  The natural inclination of many people is to secure power, to concentrate it, and, in gaining their own ultimate freedom, deny others of theirs.  So, to ensure freedom for all, we must all pay a price.  A price in vigilance, a price in defiance of those who would obstruct freedom, and sometimes a dearer price when freedom bites us on the rear.

In short: The protests that have risen against these black events staining American freedom, even when they grow violent, are things to be encouraged, supported, and not stamped down.  Should the violent elements be arrested?  Sure, but not at the expense of arresting and harming every peaceful protester in the process.  Should the police be decked out in fatigues with armored vehicles and military weaponry in response to a peaceful protest?  No, never.

“What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.”

- Thomas Jefferson

Death as character motivation: good tool, stereotypical hack, or something in between?

The title of the piece really says it all, but to spell it out plainly: there are works of media where the death of a major character serves as a motivational force for the protagonists.  The pain of the loss shocks them into action, the dead person stood up for their beliefs and thus became a martyr, the murder of a loved one spurs a rampage of revenge, and so on.  I have heard it argued that often this is a cheap bit of melodrama.  Others have said that it is an effective tool not only for justifying motivations but to tug on the emotional strings of your readers as well.   My thoughts lie somewhere in the middle, but let’s take a look at what problems readers can have with this story device.

 

The first argument has some validity to it, certainly.  There are certainly pieces where the death of a throw-away character is used to justify and motivate the actions of other characters.  In those cases, the story tool certainly feels cheap.  There is no emotional investment in the throw-away character killed off, so why should the reader feel any investment in the motivation imparted on the protagonist?  This situation gets even worse when you encounter an infamous ‘woman in the refrigerator’ incident, not uncommon in the comic book medium, where a female character is killed off or seriously harmed simply to motivate a male character.  It’s equally sexist the other way around, but it’s far more often done to women over men.

 

What makes it wrong in those cases, though, isn’t necessarily the story device itself, though if you encounter long strings of these cheap motivational deaths, it’s easy to make that connection.  The vital difference between a ‘good’ death and a ‘bad’ one really comes down to the writer.  Did she/he lay out the important emotional connections so that the death had meaning?  If the death was part of the protagonist’s backstory before the narrative, is it referenced with enough detail to capture the necessary emotions to make it carry the right weight for the reader?  Did the death itself make sense or did it feel like a nonsensical invention simply to create motivation?  Has this story tool already been used in the piece?  All important considerations to keep in mind about using this story device.

 

In the cases where it is done well, such a character death is an effective tool, if one to be used sparingly.  If you have properly invested the reader in the characters and the death fits into the narrative without pushing or reworking the tale, go for it.  Few things can make a story feel closer to reality (even if everything else is fantasy) than a meaningful, permanent death.  Exploring the chain reactions of grief, anger, and emotions caused by it can provide an extra level of depth to your other characters and sometimes even to the deceased.  Think about it, just think about it fully.  Good luck writing!

The blue smoke goes in the box!

When I worked for a crane company, our electricians told us that no matter how trained you were, electricity was an unpredictable force. They referred to it as ‘the magic blue smoke’ and encouraged us to keep it in the box. Yesterday, Mother Nature decided to provide an excellent real life example of electricity’s fickle nature.

During a sudden thunderstorm (a fact of life in the American Deep South), our house or the nearby lines were hit by a stray lightning bolt. We lost power for just a moment, but that sudden surge fried our household cable modem, router, and shocked a housemate who had been on his computer. To top it off, my own computer, on the far side of the house and powered off at the time, had its Ethernet adapter fried. No other piece of the computer was harmed, thankfully.

Still, it is a fine example of the fickle nature of natural forces. Huh. Sounds like a good theme for a book.

Writing from another gender’s viewpoint, how hard is it really?

Looking at gender, issues surrounding it, and then looking at it again through the lens of creative endeavors is and may always be something of a hot-button topic.  For me, personally, it’s an unusual thing in that, while I rationally understand why people make such a fuss about it, emotionally it’s never seemed like a complicated thing to tackle.  It is just the simple notion that, differences aside, people are elementally people.

 

I think the place where many authors (and normal people, for that matter) trip up is that they don’t look at other-gendered characters (or people) in the right light.  Often times, they are classified in a surface-down fashion instead of a core-up fashion.  To clarify, let’s take a male author looking at a female character.  It’s certainly common enough for that author to think of the character’s make-up and actions in the story through the primary lens of ‘woman’ and that leads to difficulties.  Not only will the author be tempted to fill in gaps with female stereotypes or, just as bad, with the polar opposite of said stereotypes (which are ironically JUST as stereotypical), the character’s actions outside of those stereotypes will still feel stilted and unnatural.

 

A better approach, I feel, is to try to train the mind to think of all characters in terms of their core essence first.   In such a situation, the author from above views the female character he just created as a human (or elf or dragon or whatever) first and foremost.  He doesn’t find himself asking the awkwardly-phrased question of ‘what would a woman do here?'; he simply asks himself ‘what would a person do here?’.  The action becomes more natural, because they ARE more natural, not based off stereotypes or other gender concerns.

 

Obviously, there will still be situations where specific gender issues cannot be ignored.  Some of these are biological, of course, and some of these are societal.  Still, the above rule of thumb, I think, holds true.  There is still a core at the heart of every character and those cores must be the foremost consideration when it comes to the action of the book.

 

The simplest example of this is to take a female character placed in a modern setting.  When the scene has this woman exposed to sexist remarks from her co-workers, how does she react?  There is no set answer, there aren’t even a few.  The spectrum of reaction is going to be as broad as the human spectrum, even though it is also a specific gender issue.

 

To sum up, the ultimate point I want to be making here is that, underneath all of our differences, be it gender, ethnicity, or purely social, there is a core humanity and a core personality.  While those differences may add filters to that core, it makes each person no less ‘human’ than the other.  We can only get natural and meaningful action in our writing if we keep to that idea.

 

Not only that, but I think we could all approach the world in a better way if we applied that same principal to the world outside of our writings.