Wednesday Hangovers

  • Mary Kole hosts a guest post from Melissa Koosmann on Good Telling, using Harry Potter as the well for examples. It's definitely worth remembering in the world of "show, don't tell" advice that all effective narrative requires a mix of showing and telling. Showing is slow; telling is fast. Determining what the best choice is in any given scene or bit of novel by thinking of it in those terms can often be the guide that helps you figure out when to do what. I love some nice exposition, myself, and think it often gets a bad rap in the overkill to avoid it completely. Learning when and how to tell effectively is just as important as learning how to show something in a full scene, particularly if you write in a genre like fantasy that tends to require more telling. (Another reason why Harry Potter was a good choice for Koosmann to use in her post.) Often, I see a lack of skill with telling in fiction manifest as a sense of disconnection between scenes or the main story and subplots, or in books that closely resemble screenplays in sparsity of detail and brevity of scene. Maybe I focus on this because it's something I really had/have to work on transitioning from writing screenplays to writing novels; screenplays are almost all show, and so I really had to convince myself it was okay to write the character outside and in (and usually only truly manage to do so in later drafts), etcetera. Anyway, there are lots of different kinds of places where telling can be a good choice–exposition, world-building, summary of past action or events, indicating the passage of time, and, sometimes, emotion and physical response. It isn't called storytelling for nothing.
  • Sarah pointed to this fantastic piece by Jamie Weinman on the evolution of the sitcom and multi-camera shooting vs. single camera: "When TV started, there were two ways to do a TV comedy series: do it live, or film it. The live shows naturally used an audience, the way radio comedies did. The filmed shows were, just as naturally, done like movies. (The laugh track was invented to make it clear that these shows were, in fact, comedies.) Then, famously, Desi Arnaz and Lucille Ball decided to combine the two formats — live and filmed — by doing I Love Lucy with three film cameras in front of an audience, creating the format which has remained unchanged to this day (except that now they use four cameras instead of three)." The whole piece offers a truly fascinating history of how camera choice affected the shows themselves.
  • A great installment of What A Girl Wants over at Colleen's, this time about what historical figure or nonfiction books the respondents wished they'd known about in their last year of high school.
  • I love the Library of Congress blog (and the LOC, too, obvs)–nice post about 25 new additions to the National Recording Registry, including my beloved Loretta Lynn's "Coal Miner's Daughter," Patti Smith's "Horses," and R.E.M.'s "Radio Free Europe."
  • Andre Leon Talley goes shopping with Maureen Dowd and Michiko Kakutani: "After Mount Rushmore-size portions of New York-style hot dogs layered with American cheese and chili (Kakutani orders hers without buns), and sides of French fries, we do a drive-by at Decades. It's too late to go to the second floor for vintage couture, so we browse the ground floor with clothes from the nineties to the present. Kakutani finds a mint-condition YSL by Stefano Pilati white cotton summer dress, and Dowd comes out with a supervampy, black crepe de Chine Roland Mouret with a flippy wing on one side of the skirt, totally Now, Voyager in attitude."
  • Wired has a look backstage at the American Museum of Natural History.
  • Michael Sims on vampires at The Chronicle of Higher Education: "As I read about the careful inspection of corpses for signs of vampirism, a curious thing happened. Slowly I began to get vampire stories: the horror of our aspiring consciousness finding itself trapped in a mortal body, the threatening presence of the already deceased, even the undead's gamble on a kind of credit—another's blood instead of their own—rather than acceptance of normal human fate."
  • And, finally, Delia Sherman (happy birthday week!) posted this amazing video.

Wednesday Hangovers Read More »

Secret Lives

From Philip K. Dick's thoroughly charming author's note on his first sold story, "Roog":

"So here, in a primitive form, is the basis of much of my twenty-seven years of professional writing: the attempt to get into another person's head, or another creature's head, and see out from his eyes or its eyes, and the more different that person is from the rest of us the better. You start with the sentient entity and work outward, inferring its world. Obviously, you can't ever really know what its world is like, but, I think, you can make some pretty good guesses. I began to develop the idea that each creature lives in a world somewhat different from all the other creatures and their worlds. I still think this is true. To Snooper, garbagemen were sinister and horrible. I think he literally saw them differently than we humans did."

Snooper was PKD's dog, who became the dog in the story. Puck the Dog agrees with Snooper. That's why he sleeps, ever vigilant, next to my Buffy stake.

Is he upside down or am I?
(It's not that I can't figure out how to rotate the picture… it's that this is a Puck's eye view of the world, okay? Note: Dog decidedly unalarmed by lurking Kim Stanley Robinson and Justina Robson novels.)

Secret Lives Read More »

Glorious Miscellanea

Actually, that'd be a good name for an autobiography (or perhaps a band). Miscellanea does often tend to be of the glorious variety, but don't get your hopes up.

#

So maybe you've noticed I've been dropping more short little posts around here. I finally realized that this is the only way I know how to run this blog. If I don't put up small posts when I have time, I'm far less inclined to do lengthier posts now and then, or even conversational ones like this (nattering is secretly my favorite category of posts). When we were in Madison, actually while leaving the fabulous Strange Horizons Tea Party to go see one of the best readings I've ever been to–Karen Joy Fowler, Carol Emshwiller, Eileen Gunn, Pat Murphy and Terry Bisson–Dave Schwartz and I were talking on the elevator about blogging and I said I don't post much these days because I feel like an impostor. And he said, "Oh, did you just come from the panel on impostor syndrome?" and I said, "No, but I have it!" And apparently this is common enough that it needed a panel.

Anyway, what I meant was that I don't feel comfortable doing weightier posts or even just longer ones when I'm only poking my head up rarely. They start to feel like work then, as if they loom too large and will sit at the top of the site for ages. I always said I'd keep doing this as long as it was fun. Thus, the return of little posts in addition to hangover links. Doing those, it feels far more in balance to drop in for something like this.

This is actually not the meta-blogging post, bizarrely, which is saved as a draft and will probably stay that way. Too much meta isn't nearly as fun as too much miscellanea. But, suffice to say, I'm thrilled that Lizzie's back blogging, and Carolyn's been posting quite a bit too, and Sarah had some interesting things to say about awards the other day, and so maybe we're having a little old-school litblog renaissance. I like it, and I'll be here more often. The more voices in the conversation, the more fun it is to be a part of it.

#

These thoughts are also tied up for me with the semi-hilarious furor recently caused by Laura Miller–one of the smartest readers and critics on the planet–doing something crazy, aka Putting Links At The End Instead Of In The Main Text Of The Post. Her follow-up post asserts that not leaning on links in text can make for better writing.

I'm not going to start griping about the internet and what it does to our brains here. I believe these machines and the stuff we do with them online is wonderful and magically connective and, overall, a force for good. BUT I did begin to notice that while I read lots of stuff online, much of it seems to be teaching me about the same things. Rather than encountering completely left-field stuff, or learning about new things in depth, the things I absorb most seem to be the whipped cream on the top of the coffee. This is undoubtedly more about my own browsing style than anything else, but I decided I wanted to issue a bit of a corrective.

So we subscribed to a bunch of magazines that were heavier on nonfiction than our usual wont. Smithsonian, Harper's, The Oxford American, Bust (the closest thing left to Sassy, but also it's own thing), National Geographic, and Cabinet. New Scientist is next. (Feel free to recommend your favorites.) I had nearly forgotten how much I love magazines on a purely tactile level. They are perfect for so many things, including a different kind of browsing than the internet is. They are also a good source of story ideas, which there's been discussion about lately, following on Kelly's post. And, of course, not just the big ideas which fuel an entire story, but the dozens of little ones that can help fuel any one page of said story. There is a great deal of raw fictional power in any good nonfiction.

#

Apropos of nothing: TV.

I watch almost no TV while it's actually airing. As a Certified Old Person, 9 p.m. is the latest I'll stay up to watch something, and usually, it's more like 8. After that, it officially gets shifted to whenever's convenient. (I have to read books sometimes, and that's usually at night.)

True Blood is one of the only shows I watch live–and, in fact, gave in to weakness and renewed our HBO subscription just to watch it. And I don't think it's a perfect show, but it's a nearly perfect hour of the television viewing experience. Anyone who wants to study cliffhangers and how they work, this is the show–I never watched 24, which is the only show I can think of where this would also make sense, but I love the commitment to never interrupting the time span of the narrative. Each episode picks up *exactly* where the previous one left off. None of that handwavery and three months later, which is an interesting constraint.

I'm convinced True Blood's the modern answer to the serial novel. I'm just glad I only have to run to my couch, and not down to the smelly docks. 

We've also been watching the first season of Fringe, which is way more enjoyable than I expected. The thing I'm loving about it so far is that it's completely illogical but makes sure that each episode's internal logic–while laughable–is so consistent it carries you along anyway. This is how science works when it's magic instead. Speaking of which, we have invented a Fringe drinking game. You drink anytime someone on the show offers up a definition of the singularity without actually saying the word.

It happens at least once an ep, but rarely more. Perhaps as a drinking game this needs work, then. We could add: for each shot of the cow, each outburst from Walter, each time someone has wires stuck up their nose in service to a ridiculous machine? Maybe I'll revive the old TV posts for new episodes this fall.

Also, SYTYCD is back! I can't bring myself to vote, because I like all the dancers so far. The SYTYCD drinking game would definitely involve drinking whenever Nigel says something pervy and everyone laughs in that "Oh, granddad, you rascal–in your day!" way. Actually, that might be *too* successful a drinking game, especially considering how often the show airs.

Related links:

Strange Horizons tea party/send them some loot

Lizzie announces she's reopening Old Hag (a must read and adore), and smackdowns the mefi crew

A for instance Carolyn's blogging more post

Ditto with Sarah on awards

Laura Miller on the hyperlink war

Kelly on generating story ideas

Glorious Miscellanea Read More »

Psst

I'm working on a hopefully-not-too-lengthy post about blogging (meta!), but in the meanwhile a reminder that I'm continuing to update links to Kelly Link's blog tour stops in this post. Yesterday she wrote about coming up with story ideas and a bit about her own process:

As well as useful ideas, there's a particular category of ideas that you, the writer, will never ever use, but which are pleasing, for whatever reason, to contemplate. I welcome these ideas even as I recognize them as ridiculous. They seem like but-wait-there's-more bonus! ideas that you get, for some reason, along with the useful ones — and sometimes I like these bonus! ideas even better than the ones that become stories or projects. In this category are two titles for anthologies that I will never ever edit, but which I love to contemplate: Manthology is one; the other is Unicats!.

I still like Singularicats! better.

Oh, and there's this:

And yet, wouldn't it be a blast to remake the movie "Bringing Up Baby" as a paranormal romance? I keep having this vision of the scene in which Cary Grant's character is wearing Katherine Hepburn's negligee. Doesn't the reason why seem obvious? He's just turned back from were-leopard into Cary Grant.

Psst Read More »

Friday Hangovers

Friday Hangovers Read More »

Shiny News

It's true! I'm guest editing an issue of Subterranean Online–which will have a definite YA slant–to appear next year.

I couldn't have been more delighted when Bill Schafer, Mastermind-in-Chief of Subterranean Press, offered to turn over the keys to the magazine. I've already started inviting some authors, but if you're interested—particularly if you write and publish in the YA field or have a great YA story–and haven't heard from me, feel free to drop me a line for details (email over in the sidebar).

I'm hoping this turns out to be the best short fiction and related nonfic you read all next year. I'm a dreamer that way.

Shiny News Read More »

AMEN

The wonderful wonderful wonderful Maureen Johnson has a manifesto:

The internet is made of people. People matter. This includes you. Stop trying to sell everything about yourself to everyone. Don’t just hammer away and repeat and talk at people—talk TO people. It’s organic. Make stuff for the internet that matters to you, even if it seems stupid. Do it because it’s good and feels important. Put up more cat pictures. Make more songs. Show your doodles. Give things away and take things that are free. Look at what other people are doing, not to compete, imitate, or compare . . . but because you enjoy looking at the things other people make. Don’t shove yourself into that tiny, airless box called a brand—tiny, airless boxes are for trinkets and dead people.

There's lots of context, which you should go read, but, seriously, YES. YES. YES. YES. If you're arguing, I don't know, read Lewis Hyde's The Gift and see how you feel.

Relatedly: I would also like to ban the word networking–it's called Being Interested In Other People when done in the right spirit. Or, at the very least, should never ever be undertaken in the ungenerous spirit of What Can You Do For Me. Because that is boring and, also, awful.

The Internet *is* a conversation or, rather, many conversations. Like the rest of life. Don't break it.

AMEN Read More »

Pretty Good Tour (Updated)

PrettymonstersThe frequently miraculous Kelly Link–needless to say, one of my favorite writers and favorite people–is blog touring here and there this week to support the paperback release of her YA collection Pretty Monsters. Which you should all pick up immediately, and psst, completists, it even includes an additional story.

Her first post at the Cozy Reader is quite amazing, and offers part one of what she's been doing since the collection published:

Ursula was born on February 23, 2009, at twenty-four weeks, after a complicated pregnancy. I had checked out What To Expect When You’re Expecting from our library early on, but I hadn’t even gotten to the section on labor when I went into labor. We had barely begun to think about names. I liked Fern, because of Charlotte’s Web. My husband and I both liked Gulliver, if it turned out I was having a boy. (The ultrasounds were cloudy. Ask again later.) We both liked Ursula, because it meant little bear, and because we both loved the books of Ursula K. Le Guin.

You'll want to read the rest, and I defy you to skip part two.

Updated: I'm going to add links for each day as I see them.

Day Two: Part two: "I didn't write any stories during this period. Maybe this is because the kinds of stories that I write don't have the kind of happy, conclusive ending that I longed for, so badly, for so many months, in my own life. Maybe I didn't write because it was always going to be hard to write while you are a new parent."

Day Three: Part One: "Me, I've always been concerned about the fact that I can't drive stick shift. Come the zombie apocalypse, or the werewolf attack, I'll be the one sitting in the driver’s seat of the getaway car, crying hysterically while I flood the clutch." Part Two: Lists of favorite romances, paranormal romances, and movies and TV that mix fantasy and romance.

Day Four: Advice for writers on reading: "Read awful books. No, seriously. Read them out loud, with friends, if you can. Identify the ways in which you can learn from them. My favorite awful book? Micah by Laurel K. Hamilton (I am not going to say that her other books are awful, by the way. But this one is astonishingly — and usefully – and wonderfully — horrible. I highly recommend it.)"

Day Five: A short interview: "I still read Joyce Ballou Gregorian's Tredana trilogy every few years, mostly because she died much too young, and so there are only those three books. They mean a ton to me."

Day Six: On generating story ideas: "Kate Wilhelm is a writer of mystery novels, classic science fiction novels like Where Late the Sweet Bird Sang, a short-story writer, and an anthologist. Along with her husband Damon Knight, she co-founded the Clarion Workshop. Although she was no longer an instructor when I went to Clarion in 1995, one of the most useful pieces of writing advice I've ever come across was something Wilhelm said. To roughly paraphrase, she suggests that every writer indirectly collaborates with her subconscious — she calls this collaborator your Silent Partner — who supplies you with ideas that you then turn into stories."

Day Seven: In which Kelly interviews N.K. Jemisin. No excerpt, because just go read it and then read Nora's book like I already told you.

Day Eight: On discovering Diana Wynne Jones: "At this age, even though I can't quite keep the names of authors straight in my head, I am beginning to develop a theory that writers with three names (or at least two initials) are good bets when it comes to fantasy. (Probably why I will eventually pick up Joyce Ballou Gregorian's books, as well as P. C. Hodgell's, in a few years, and then Karen Joy Fowler's collection Artificial Things. Eventually I am also partial to interesting and distinctive names, like Piers Anthony, or Tanith Lee, maybe because they are easier to remember. By the time I'm fifteen or sixteen, I'm fully invested in the cult of the author: if a bio reveals that an author has a horse, or cats, or lives in a castle — better yet, all three — I'll give their book a try.)"

Day Nine (the last day): On making zines: "What I would really love to see are some YA zines — there are a lot of good blogs where you can go and find people talking about YA fiction, but there still aren't a lot of venues that publish YA short fiction, or for that matter, young adult writers who are beginning to write fiction."

(So, I only listed the stops here that had posts to them, which means maybe one giveaway site where I couldn't find the post might be missing. Gavin's list contains all the blogs that participated.)

Pretty Good Tour (Updated) Read More »

Those Darn Topias

Laura Miller takes an insightful tour of the dystopian YA boom of recent years (and still going strong) for the New Yorker:

The youth-centered versions of dystopia part company with their adult predecessors in some important respects. For one thing, the grownup ones are grimmer. In an essay for the 2003 collection "Utopian and Dystopian Writing for Children and Young Adults," the British academic Kay Sambell argues that "the narrative closure of the protagonist’s final defeat and failure is absolutely crucial to the admonitory impulse of the classic adult dystopia." The adult dystopia extrapolates from aspects of the present to show readers how terrible things will become if our deplorable behavior continues unchecked. The more utterly the protagonist is crushed, the more urgent and forceful the message. Because authors of children’s fiction are "reluctant to depict the extinction of hope within their stories," Sambell writes, they equivocate when it comes to delivering a moral. Yes, our errors and delusions may lead to catastrophe, but if—as usually happens in dystopian novels for children—a new, better way of life can be assembled from the ruins would the apocalypse really be such a bad thing?

Read the whole piece.

Those Darn Topias Read More »

Diana Comet’s Amazing Meme

So, Sandra McDonald has a new story collection, Diana Comet and Other Improbable Stories (which I bet is wonderful), and she created this amazing periodic table of women in science fiction and fantasy and an accompanying video. All of which you should check out, of course.

Now said table has been memefied.

Which of the 117 authors listed on Diana Comet’s periodic table of women in science fiction have you read? Following the rules, I’ve bolded the ones I own books by, italicized the women I’ve read something by, and starred those I'm unfamiliar with. For the editors, I'm assuming this means owning books they've edited, reading work they've edited, etc. Results behind the cut tag.

(I should also say that I benefit from having Christopher's books as well as my own–and whenever I'd mention someone I was unfamiliar with while doing this, C would say, "Oh, she wrote the ETCETERA IMPORTANT TALES." So now I'm at least semi-informed about the ones I've starred.)

Diana Comet’s Amazing Meme Read More »

Scroll to Top