#amwriting – a look inside the author process

I’ve been thinking a lot about Lucille Ball. When I was a kid, I watched I Love Lucy in reruns and I was entranced. Her expressions, her physical comedic ability, her sense of timing—all of it was brilliant. Even though I couldn’t articulate that as a child, what I knew she was a funny lady.

I wanted to be a funny lady, too.

Comedy reveals character, and, let’s face it, Ms. Ball was incredible at that. She didn’t write Lucy Riccardo but she embodied her so thoroughly, that this character in the hands of any other actor would not have become the icon that it has.

That brings me to the word “snarky” and the reason for all my recent musings. This word is used to describe many books these days across a variety of genres. (I use it to describe my books all the time.)

Snark should be more than sarcastic banter. It should provide a lens as to how a character moves through the world and should reveal character.

Take the example of Mae West, who was “cheeky.” (I suggest this is a close cousin to “snarky.”) Sure, her one-liners were comedy gold, and yet, there was a wealth of character revealed in them.

There are many authors who use snark brilliantly, but my concern is that it’s become some bandwagon to jump on. It’s seen as popular, and therefore, marketable, used even on books I consider quite dark in tone.

I’m worried that this word is losing all meaning, because if everything is snarky, then how does a reader trust that anything actually is?

What, as authors, do we owe our readers, in terms of comedy?

Character. It’s where it’s at.

Check out The Jezebel Files and decide how well I’ve accomplished this with Ash. https://geni.us/BloodAndAsh  

The post #amwriting – a look inside the author process appeared first on Author Deborah Wilde.