Feeds:
Posts
Comments

On a recent podcast of Writing Excuses, specifically Season 8 Episode 17: Microcasting, Mary Kowal explained her process for using Alpha and Beta readers. There are many, many ways to do this but I found her method very instructive. Here are my notes:

  • Alpha readers receive chapters one at a time, and stay about two chapters behind where Mary is currently writing her work-in-progress (WIP).
  • Beta readers receive her WIP all in one chunk. They focus on the work as a whole. Mary asks them to essentially flag problems by identifying:
    • areas that Bore them,
    • areas that Confuse them,
    • things they don’t Understand,
    • things they don’t Believe, and
    • things that are Cool (so she doesn’t change them and remove the coolness factor).
  • Editors, Agents, and other Industry Professionals see Mary’s WIPs only after going through this process so they can be in as final a state as possible.

In the podcast Mary promised to share a link to an external source and she did: Alpha-Reading by Laura A. Christensen. This excellent post details the things a writer needs to know from their readers:

  1. Clarity.  Do you understand what is going on? Can you picture the setting and the characters in your head? Can you see where everyone is in relationship to each other?  Was the fight scene confusing? Is my word choice obscure?
  2. Impact.  Was this part funny or did it fall flat?  Do you like these characters at this moment? Are you frustrated with them? Do you love them? Are you afraid? Is this intense? Are you bored? Do you wish you could stop reading? Do you feel like you’re there with the characters?  Was this part a tear-jerker or were you annoyed?  Was the ending satisfying or did I drop the ball?
  3. Believability.  How are my characters’ reactions? Does this feel plausible to you?  Is this the way you handle a gun in your experience?  Do I need to do further research about xyz?  Does my fight scene feel real? Does this fit together and make sense?
  4. Interest.  Does this fascinate you the way it fascinates me?  Are you hooked?  Is this too much detail or not enough?

All in all, this seems like sage advice. Thanks to both for sharing.

Groundhog Day

I just finished listening to an excellent podcast about one of my favorite movies, Groundhog Day. It was part of The 20/20 Awards, a show on Kiro Radio in Seattle, WA that re-evaluates the Oscar nominees from twenty years ago. A neat concept to be sure.

Listen here: Episode 9 – GROUNDHOG DAY

I was struck by one of the commenters’ statements about target audiences and his point is worth repeating: Writers should NOT define the target audience for their work until it is complete. 

This sounds radical given today’s market-driven society but put into historical context makes perfect sense. Only recently has Hollywood sold out to the marketing bean counters. In years past (think Hitchcock or anything before the early ’80s), writers, directors, producers, and actors simply tried to make the best movie they could. Pixar does this now but everyone else tries to define their story in terms of target audience near the beginning of their creative process. On a side note, I suspect this has something to do with the change Brian McDonald noticed in movies released after about 1984. That was probably when Hollywood integrated marketing ideas into key positions in the movie creation process.

This is a mistake for several crucial reasons:

First, it takes the focus away from trying to craft the best story possible. Instead the creative process is restricted and pigeonholed by whatever the writer “thinks” their target audience wants.

  • Teen boys are only interested in muscular heroes, scantily clad girls, and exploding helicopters.
  • Older women only want romances set at the turn-of-the-century, during the civil war, or in Amish country.
  • The only Science Fiction stories that people watch involve zombies or vampires.

Secondly, can you see the stereotypes developing here? Everyone knows that stereotypes are to be avoided yet identifying a work’s target audience at the beginning of a project seems to encourage their use.

Thirdly and worse yet, if every writer is doing this then every story from every writer will start to sound the same. Isn’t a lack of originality already a problem in stories these days? You bet and defining the target audience too early encourages this practice too.

Fourthly, it seems to lead to bad idea generation. I’ve heard several different story ideas over the past several years about crossing Vampires with Zombies (but that’s usually as far as the ideas get):

Bob: Hey Joe! I’ve got a great idea! Since teenage girls love vampires and zombie movies are hot right now too, why not mix the two? We could make a fortune writing the next Twilight about Vambies! Or Zompires! Or both!!!
Joe: Awesome idea! We’ll get an Oscar for sure! And let’s add in werewolves! We can call them Werepires and maybe Werebies. Err… What would you call a werewolf half-breed?
Bob: It doesn’t matter. We’ll make a fortune!!!

Please note that these are roundly considered “bad” ideas but note where they originate. They come from thinking about the target audience at the beginning.

Finally, related to the problems of originality and stereotyping there is a sort of lowest-common-denominator dynamic at work. Instead of writers trying to best one another with better and better stories, the focus has shifted to who can wring the most money out of the public with the least amount of effort. It’s a race to the bottom. Such systems are unstable and short-lived. They tend to favor the worst in quality and always encourage the use of base motivators like fear, sex, and greed. We can do better.

Again, defining your target audience early is a flat-out bad idea. The great directors of the past were always trying to make the best movies they could. We should emulate them and not fall into the trap of trying to market a product that doesn’t yet exist. From now on, focus on writing the best story you can. If anyone asks, your Target Audience is Everyone. You can always redefine it later. Better yet, since most writers don’t possess marketing degrees, leave that decision for the marketing department to figure out.

Neil Gaiman and his dog, Cabal. Photo by Kyle Cassidy.

Neil Gaiman and his dog, Cabal. Photo by Kyle Cassidy.

I need to correct something. The quote at the top of this webpage–the source of the name for this blog–has been misattributed.

Fairy tales are more than true: not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.

The above is not a quote by G. K. Chesterton but Neil Gaiman. It is from his 2002 novel, Coraline. This quote is apparently often misattributed to Mr. Chesterton because the sentiment is his. Here is Mr. Chesterton’s real quote on the topic:

Fairy tales do not give the child his first idea of bogey. What fairy tales give the child is his first clear idea of the possible defeat of bogey.

Mr. Gaiman was a fan of Mr. Chesterton’s works in his youth and rephrased the sentiment in his 2002 novel. But the actual quote used for this blog is Gaiman’s.

I suppose it’s one of those quotes that’s simply easy to misattribute like the famous “Play it again, Sam” from the movie Casablanca. That exact wording doesn’t appear in the movie though many people who’ve seen the film will swear it is. If you watch the film, you’ll see that it is in fact not phrased that way.

So, what do I mean by The Golden Rule of Apologetics? It’s a phrase I heard from a podcast I subscribe to called I Didn’t Know That! Perhaps you’ve heard of the Golden Rule often stated as:

Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

The apologetics version is:

Treat other people’s arguments as you would have them treat your own.

In this instance, they both mean attributing the quote to the right person. So to Mr. Gaiman I would like to say the following:

I’m sorry for any trouble this has caused. I really love the quote and wish I’d had it correct from the beginning. I hope you can forgive my error.

I was alerted to the problem while searching online when I came upon a quote page at Goodreads. It had the quote but a different attribution. I was confused until I noticed the tag, misattributed-to-g-k-chesterton. So I researched the matter, discovered the truth, and wrote this post.

Personally, I know what it feels like to be misunderstood and I hate that feeling. I imagine being misquoted or misattributed is similar. And as an aspiring writer, I would hate for something I wrote to be misattributed so I must correct this error. Again, my apologies.

One more thing. Apologetics, unlike many might think, has nothing to do with making an apology. Lest I unintentionally reinforce this common misunderstanding while trying to right a different wrong, I feel I must explain it too.

Apologetics is “the discipline of defending a position (often religious) through the systematic use of information [and logical argumentation]. Early Christian writers (c. 120–220) who defended their faith against critics and recommended their faith to outsiders were called apologists.” (Source: Wikipedia) It is an irony that this post is about an apology. Nothing more. But the podcast I recently listened to was about the Golden Rule of Apologetics, not merely the Golden Rule, so my source for the title of the post is the apologetic version of the rule. I hope that’s clear.

This post is a corollary to my previous post on character admissions. I’ve seen the following issue many times but most recently in DreamWorks’ Puss in Boots. It is a minor complaint in this particular film so if you haven’t seen it yet, do so before reading on. I don’t want to spoil your enjoyment of an excellent film because there are spoilers below.

Puss-in-Boots with Humpty

Humpty and Puss’ grew up together as friends. They were both mischievous in their younger years (pictured above) but Puss had an opportunity to turn his life around. Humpty later tricks Puss into helping him with one last job – robbing the local bank. When Puss discovers the deception, he whispers in his friend’s hearing:

‘You tricked me.’

True to life, if you were tricked into committing a crime, the first thing out of your mouth would probably also be, ‘You tricked me!’ The problem is, that is the last time Puss ever utters those words.

Any normal person wrongly accused of a crime would repeat this truth to everyone they met – especially the authorities – until they listened. Characters should speak the truth. 

Yet Puss says this only once and only in the hearing of the one who betrayed him who already knew it. He never mentions it again. Not when confronted with the local authorities and not in front of his mother. Both of which happen multiple times.

Worse yet, at the end of the film Puss admits to being guilty for a crime he didn’t commit rather than utter those three simple words. Puss didn’t rob the bank. Humpty did and it was Humpty who got Puss to help under false pretenses.

Speaking precisely, the flaw being identified is a form of misunderstanding that occurs when a character fails to express their proper motivation. Puss being misunderstood is required for the plot of the film. Puss in Boots is fabulous otherwise. It is well-written and Humpty’s dialogue is some of the best I’ve ever experienced. DreamWorks really shines with their dialogue and especially their voicework.

The flaw is actually much more prominent in another genre of film: Romantic Comedies. I can’t remember a recent romcom that didn’t include this flaw and I confess I’ve quit watching them like so many movie goers. Misunderstandings are fine premises as stories go. They are certainly common enough and can be done correctly, but misunderstandings in real life are almost never based on one character in jeopardy failing to state the obvious truth when given the opportunity. Yet this limp-dish-rag variety of misunderstanding has become a staple of the romcom.

Bottom Line: Don’t write characters this way. Don’t even use such a motivation as a placeholder in your development process. This problem – the natural expression of a character’s motivation – is avoidable simply by removing the ability for the character to express it. So, suppress the truth. Put a gag in that character’s mouth for that scene, either physically or metaphorically. Write in a boisterous character that won’t let the truth be heard. Better yet, tie this boisterous character into the plot by giving them something to lose if the truth got out. Give them the motivation to prevent the truth coming out even if it is as simple as the guard in Puss in Boots swearing to bring him in if it’s the last thing he ever does.

Puss has no gag and nothing to lose by speaking the truth. In fact he has everything to gain and since Humpty has presumable already paid for his crime, nothing he says will harm his former friend. All of which is why this bit of Puss’ character falls flat. Admittedly, DreamWorks attempted to plug this hole in the final scene with a plea by Puss’ mother to not fight the guards before he had an opportunity to speak. But in all honesty he’d already had that opportunity multiple times and didn’t take any of them.

Remember, speak the truth or suppress it. Those are the only two acceptable options.

If you want to know more of the ills applicable to the romcom, as well as where they shine, I invite you to visit the Living the Romantic Comedy blog by Billy Mernit. If you haven’t seen Puss in Boots and are reading this, then do yourself a favor and cue up the movie on Netflix. Despite this flaw, it’s a very fun family-friendly movie with lessons about friendship, loyalty, and redemption.

I have noticed a disturbing trend in my media of late. At least, it’s disturbing to me.

Maybe it’s the stories.

Maybe it’s the theme.

Maybe it’s writers who are too proud. Or directors afraid to offend. Or editors, producers, and publishers. But…

Characters aren’t admitting their guilt anymore.

I’m not talking about the villains. I’m talking about the heroes.

I’m of the old school in which a person who commits a crime or is guilty of some fault is expected to admit their guilt as proof of their change-of-heart and this must happen before their status with their community is restored. But I’m not seeing it play out like this anymore either in the movies I watch or the books I read.

This concept is the heart of the Christian conversion experience and has been a staple of media in western culture for centuries. Heroes typically change over the course of their stories so this concept is tailor-made for them. Usually, a bit of dialogue is all that is required because change can usually be shown. However, it seems the modern incarnations of our heroes are taking a lesson from the villains’ playbook and never admitting to anything anymore.

Maybe I’m not watching the right movies or reading the right books, but I think this is a trend nonetheless and I think a bad one.

Brave Logo
If you’ve already read my post on Pixar’s latest movie, then you may remember my complaint that neither Merida nor her mother ever fully apologizes for their behavior. Merida’s rebellious attitude goes unrecognized and unpunished. Her mother’s anti-social behavior too.

Why?

My best guess is that it’s a symptom of modern culture. Because in everyday life even our President, someone who I largely support, has not prosecuted the wall street professionals responsible for taking our economy to the brink of destruction. I applaud him for moving us forward and seeing us through some very difficult times, but part of me wants Justice. Accountability. Revenge too, if I’m being honest. And now that our most pressing issue  - the US economy – is being dealt with I’d like to see these troublemakers get their comeuppance but it hasn’t happened yet.

Personally, I have more respect for baseball players like Mark McGwire who admit their drug use – even if it is years after the fact – than those who continue to hide their faults. (Better late than never but also better early than late.) Of course the irony of modern culture is that all publicity is good publicity. The fact that we know certain names and not others has little to do with morality and lots more with what makes a story news-worthy.

As for me, I plan on having my characters admit their guilt if doing so is in keeping with their character. It is easy as a writer to avoid the hard conversations, but it is those types of conversations where honesty prevails that are most memorable and true to life.

The following statement was issued by Mark McGwire on January 11, 2010 admitting to steroid use during his career:

“Now that I have become the hitting coach for the St. Louis Cardinals, I have the chance to do something that I wish I was able to do five years ago.

“I never knew when, but I always knew this day would come. It’s time for me to talk about the past and to confirm what people have suspected. I used steroids during my playing career and I apologize. I remember trying steroids very briefly in the 1989/1990 off season and then after I was injured in 1993, I used steroids again. I used them on occasion throughout the ’90s, including during the 1998 season.

“I wish I had never touched steroids. It was foolish and it was a mistake. I truly apologize. Looking back, I wish I had never played during the steroid era.

“During the mid-’90s, I went on the DL seven times and missed 228 games over five years. I experienced a lot of injuries, including a ribcage strain, a torn left heel muscle, a stress fracture of the left heel, and a torn right heel muscle. It was definitely a miserable bunch of years and I told myself that steroids could help me recover faster. I thought they would help me heal and prevent injuries, too.

“I’m sure people will wonder if I could have hit all those home runs had I never taken steroids. I had good years when I didn’t take any and I had bad years when I didn’t take any. I had good years when I took steroids and I had bad years when I took steroids. But no matter what, I shouldn’t have done it and for that I’m truly sorry.

“Baseball is really different now — it’s been cleaned up. The commissioner and the players’ association implemented testing and they cracked down, and I’m glad they did.

“I’m grateful to the Cardinals for bringing me back to baseball. I want to say thank you to Cardinals owner Mr. DeWitt, to my GM, John Mozeliak, and to my manager, Tony La Russa. I can’t wait to put the uniform on again and to be back on the field in front of the great fans in Saint Louis. I’ve always appreciated their support and I intend to earn it again, this time as hitting coach. I’m going to pour myself into this job and do everything I can to help the Cardinals hitters become the best players for years to come.

“After all this time, I want to come clean. I was not in a position to do that five years ago in my congressional testimony, but now I feel an obligation to discuss this and to answer questions about it. I’ll do that, and then I just want to help my team.”

(Source: ESPN)

Note that McGwire didn’t issue this statement as a player. Nor did he admit to using drugs during a congressional hearing. He issued this statement after accepting a new position as hitting coach for the St. Louis Cardinals. In other words, his conscience was bothering him and he admitted his guilt honestly from feelings of remorse. That’s why his fans believed him. That’s why he got a standing ovation prior to the Cardinals home opener on April 12, 2010 – four months after his admission.

His statement before the house committee on government reform is illuminating too:

Asking me or any other player to answer questions about who took steroids in front of television cameras will not solve the problem. If a player answers ‘No,’ he simply will not be believed; if he answers ‘Yes,’ he risks public scorn and endless government investigations…My lawyers have advised me that I cannot answer these questions without jeopardizing my friends, my family, and myself. I will say, however, that it remains a fact in this country that a man, any man, should be regarded as innocent unless proven guilty. (Source: CNN)

This is reality. Why aren’t we writing more material that includes scenes like this?

When attempting to sell a novel, everything should relate to “the novel” you’re selling.

  • The Plot: Use clear language that introduces your characters and explains who did what to whom. You’re selling the book to a publisher, not writing the back cover copy. Give away the ending. Don’t hold anything back.
  • Genre and Word Count: Publishing companies maintain detailed demographic information about their books and readers that result in having “slots” to fill. Include the genre and word count so it’s easy for your reviewer to determine if your 65,000 word Space-Cowboy Romance fills an open slot in their Spring lineup.
  • Writing Awards: Only include awards won by the novel you’re selling.
  • Past Publications: Novels must stand on their own merits, not the authors. Only include past publications if you are submitting something like a freelance article to a magazine.
  • Critique Groups: Never include them. They aren’t recognized as valid by the professional community.

Remember, you’re selling a novel, not yourself, your past successes or your commitment. All of those things distract from the purpose of the query – to sell your novel.

For some tongue-in-cheek advice from an industry professional, I recommend the hilarious Annotated Query Letter from Hell by Cheryl Klein. She is the Executive Editor at Arthur A. Levine Books (an imprint of Scholastic) and has worked on, among other things, the american editions of the Harry Potter series.

Pixar is an amazing company.

Thirteen releases and thirteen critically-acclaimed box office hits.

As Scott Myers says on his excellent Get Into The Story blog, let that sink in for a moment.

Thirteen releases and thirteen hits. Wow. This is the holy grail of Hollywood and no other studio has ever come close.

Now fast forward back to reality. Some say Pixar dropped the ball with Cars 2. Personally, I enjoyed the movie but it’s true that the story and character motivations were a little off.

To explain about Cars 2, if you’ve seen both movies you’ll note some striking differences. The first movie is all about Lightning McQueen learning to be humble. Everything about the first Cars movie supports this concept and it’s done well. The second movie is a sequel to the first but only sort of. The beloved tow truck Mater is the star of Cars 2. Maybe that’s why it feels “off” but I see it as a story issue because Mater doesn’t significantly change over the course of the film. Change isn’t a requirement for a good story, and Mater does come to accept his silliness and how others see him, but he doesn’t really change. The Mater at the end is the same as at the beginning. In contrast, Lightning McQueen does change. He goes from not wanting Mater around to accepting his friendship whenever and wherever. For Lightning, it’s a story about acceptance and friendship. If the character with the most to learn is supposed to be the protagonist then Lightning should be the protagonist just like in the first movie – but Mater is the star of Cars 2. It’s a strange story structure that seems to have subverted the traditional Pixar emotional story for a James Bond-style plot however entertaining that might be.

Brave Logo

So how does Brave compare? My thoughts:

  1. Brave shouldn’t have been titled ‘Brave’. The story really has nothing to do with bravery. Merida is a fiercely independent teenage girl whose actions can be described as defiant, at times assertive or arrogant, but never brave. She does accept responsibility for her actions and asks for forgiveness by the end of the movie which requires courage but it’s a stretch to call that bravery. Maybe the title was a marketing decision. I think “Strive” would have fit the movie better because Merida is constantly striving for something.
  2. The ubiquitous bow and arrow have little to do with the story. They are plot devices. Merida does get into trouble for winning an archery tournament a la Robin Hood style near the beginning. And Merida’s mother does throw Merida’s bow into the fire which triggers Merida to run away, but that is using it as a story talisman. Her excellent bow skills don’t help Merida in her first battle with the bear Mor’du. They are useful for catching fish for her mother’s breakfast but the pair could have foraged for berries just as well. Bottom line, they don’t help her win the final battle in any way and are therefore meaningless to the overall story (unlike another popular female protagonist).
  3. We don’t know who to root for. Merida only half changes as does her mother. Merida accepts responsibility for causing her mother to transform, but never apologizes for her earlier insubordination. Merida’s mother retreats from maintaining the status quo with regards to Merida’s betrothal but never actually apologizes for controlling her daughter’s life. In the end they both come to understand one another by a kind of role reversal but is having two characters only half change satisfying? Perhaps we are supposed to be happy that they ‘met in the middle’.
  4. Brave is two halves of a movie. One builds forward from the beginning while the other reaches back from the end and neither quite fits with the other. The forward-building concepts include destiny, the imagery of the bow and arrow, the title, and the intent to change fate. The back-reaching parts are the stone circle, the concept of falling rocks, the bear Mor’du, and accepting the status quo. Both sets of concepts are fascinating in their own right but neither set is fully developed. What could this movie have been with just the starting concepts? A truly brave Merida using her archery skills to defeat a villainous enemy released in a pandora’s box-style story would have been epic. And this is what sold the movie. However, the back-reaching concepts do not an epic story build.
  5. There should have been five clans. The story would have been much more satisfying if the four current clans were descended from four surviving princes of the ancient kingdom. There could have been five brothers with the eldest becoming Mor’du. The remaining four brothers could have imprisoned him somehow and then become the current clans. Such a simple story fix would have raised the emotional stakes overall and energized the existing connections between Merida and Mor’du. It would also have avoided the need for Merida’s convoluted explanation to the clan leaders while her mother was sneaking back into the tapestry room. The chessboard scene would have had to go but the use of falling chess pieces seemed out-of-character for the always proper queen to me anyway.
  6. The ending doesn’t fit. Yes, Merida and her mother make up. Yes, Merida solves the riddle and fixes the mess she made. But no, it doesn’t fit. The back-reaching story parts seem lifted from another movie, Disney’s Brother Bear. However, Brother Bear didn’t claim to be an epic story about bravery whereas Brave does. Brother Bear is about a human who gets transformed into a bear to teach him that actions have consequences, how nature works, and to not act in anger. It is a surprisingly well done emotional journey through the northern wilderness and should have received more attention, critical acclaim, and box office success than it did. Brave doesn’t start out like Brother Bear yet it has a similar emotional ending and these two halves don’t fit.
  7. The ending isn’t satisfying. Pixar is known for making movies with great endings. Great endings resolve the external, relational, and internal stakes of the story simultaneously. However, Merida doesn’t defeat Mor’du. Her mother does. So, again, whose story is it? And what about Merida’s archery skills? Does Merida show bravery in the stone circle during the final battle? At least she makes up with her mother afterwards and accepts her role in causing the disaster but this ending is not great. Enough said.

But there is one more aspect of story that has bearing on Brave.

  1. The ending is satisfying to women. The ending of Brave is a woman’s ending but I don’t mean that disrespectfully. Most movies are for and by men. Stereotypically, men focus on conflict and competition. By contrast, women are concerned with restoring relationships and cooperation. With that understanding, Brave delivers a very satisfying ending in that Merida’s relationship with her mother is completely restored through their cooperative actions. But it still doesn’t match the more male-focused beginning.

While writing this post I ran across the wikipedia article for Brave which noted that Pixar rewrote their proprietary animation software while making this movie. As a computer professional I know how much time and effort such a major undertaking requires. So maybe this movie is an ironic consequence of Pixar’s corporate strive for excellence. Simply put, Brave might be the learning movie for their new software and that’s not a bad thing. It means Pixar’s future movies should return to – and will likely surpass – the level of excellence we know, expect, and love.

And Pixar’s worst film is usually miles ahead of the vast majority of Hollywood productions.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 389 other followers

%d bloggers like this: