The second biggest problem with loving your characters too much is that you find it hard to make bad things happen to them. I'm forever telling students - raise the stakes! Make your character suffer. Sometimes we do an exercise where I get them to write down the absolute worst thing that could happen to their main character, other than death. They do as I ask, and come up with assault, bankruptcy, betrayal, severe injuries, etc. Then I tell them that they have to try to make that terrible thing happen to the character in their story.
They are usually horrified. And try to find all kinds of reasons why that wouldn't be possible. In fact, for one or two, the catastrophe wouldn't be possible, but for more than 90% it is not only possible but it would give their story the drama and conflict it often needs. I don't force them to do this, of course, but I want to at least raise the idea and let them think about it.
I have the same problem. Many of us do. Our characters cruise too easily through their lives, and the result is low tension levels and a reader who says "so what?" In a middle grade novel I've been rewriting again, one of the things I've struggled with is the knowledge that I don't love my main character. I like her, I like writing about her, but I don't love her. It's caused me problems in terms of moving her close to the reader, and feeling as if I am inside her head (mostly solved by moving into first person), but as it's a suspense/mystery story, I've had no trouble putting her in danger and injuring her!
One of the things I liked in the Deaver novel I read recently (where the main character is Lincoln Rhyme, the paraplegic investigator) was the way in which the other major character, Sachs, was tricked and nearly died as a result. Rhyme's ability to analyse the information in connected crimes saved her. Right up to the last minute, I thought that this time she would die, and this was because the villain seemed invincible. That's the other side of tension - a truly dangerous foe, not a cartoon baddie.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Do You Love Your Characters?
I read an interesting post this morning (while trundling around the net, procrastinating about marking assignments) that talked about "liking" and enjoying your characters, especially your viewpoint/main character, rather than being "in love" with them. The writer said she thought being in love with your character can blind you to how you are writing about them - you might be having a wonderful time, getting them to do all sorts of enjoyable things in the story, but actually end up writing drivel. In other words, fun for you but what about the poor reader?
It's an interesting thought. How often are we told we must love our main character, know them inside out, want to tell their story, etc etc. Writers talk about how the characters "just took over the story and I had no control over them", and that certainly does happen, but I do believe your subconscious comes into play at that point. Your own suspension of disbelief (i.e. these are not real people) allows you to fully engage in what is possible for them. If you hold the characters at arms-length and manipulate them on the page, the "taking over" is not possible.
For me, the idea that being in love with your character can blind you to bad writing rings true. When I know a character well, but am not in love with them, I can see their flaws as well as their good points. I also like writing in order to find out more about them. Sometimes this happens in the novel, but often it happens in the extra writing. If I feel I'm not getting to grips with a character well enough, I'll free write about them, ask them questions, let them answer in their own voice. Free writing unlocks the subconscious element of character creation far better than the actual novel does, because you are not constrained by story. And it's the subconscious part that reveals things about the character that you didn't know you knew.
OK, so all this subconscious stuff sounds weird, or at least a bit suspicious. Try it for yourself. Free write a scene where you sit behind a desk and your character enters the room and sits on the other side. Ask them questions, and then free write their answers. The key is in the free writing - you do it fast, without stopping, without editing, and you keep going for at least twenty minutes. If you've never tried free writing before, make sure you stick to the rules. If you want to know more about it, Wild Mind by Natalie Goldberg is a great book.
It's an interesting thought. How often are we told we must love our main character, know them inside out, want to tell their story, etc etc. Writers talk about how the characters "just took over the story and I had no control over them", and that certainly does happen, but I do believe your subconscious comes into play at that point. Your own suspension of disbelief (i.e. these are not real people) allows you to fully engage in what is possible for them. If you hold the characters at arms-length and manipulate them on the page, the "taking over" is not possible.
For me, the idea that being in love with your character can blind you to bad writing rings true. When I know a character well, but am not in love with them, I can see their flaws as well as their good points. I also like writing in order to find out more about them. Sometimes this happens in the novel, but often it happens in the extra writing. If I feel I'm not getting to grips with a character well enough, I'll free write about them, ask them questions, let them answer in their own voice. Free writing unlocks the subconscious element of character creation far better than the actual novel does, because you are not constrained by story. And it's the subconscious part that reveals things about the character that you didn't know you knew.
OK, so all this subconscious stuff sounds weird, or at least a bit suspicious. Try it for yourself. Free write a scene where you sit behind a desk and your character enters the room and sits on the other side. Ask them questions, and then free write their answers. The key is in the free writing - you do it fast, without stopping, without editing, and you keep going for at least twenty minutes. If you've never tried free writing before, make sure you stick to the rules. If you want to know more about it, Wild Mind by Natalie Goldberg is a great book.
Friday, September 14, 2007
The End of the Week
It's been a long week. And today, Friday, has been "anxious day". After 3 days in a training course, I now have a long list of things to catch up on, things to do, payments to make, assignments to mark, cats to kick (oops, didn't mean that, but if they don't stop bugging me for food ... grocery shopping is on the catch-up list). I hate feeling like this because what it does, more than anything, is stop me writing. I get so twitchy about THE LIST that writing drops right to the bottom of it. But nevertheless, a major item was a final little polish on a manuscript that I was supposed to email to an editor, so I made it the priority. And it's done. And I feel better now.
I've mentioned Clive James here before - he seems to be the most quotable person around at the moment. His latest quote was about critics. He was actually quoting Miles Davis, who said, "If I don't like what they say, I climb into my Ferrari and drive away." Obviously Mr Davis can afford a Ferrari, as probably can Mr James. I tend to imagine climbing into our old Holden Ute, cranking over the engine a few times, despairing at its failure to fire, finally getting it going and then hitting the gatepost on my way out of the driveway. Doesn't quite have the same ring, does it?
A few months ago, I added a couple of new blogs to my regular reading (I had to, since Miss Snark retired), and one is Paperback Writer, aka Lynn Viehl. She has a great blog with lots of extras - in particular, links to useful free software for writers - but she also runs a few competitions. The kind where you can post a comment and be in the hat for a prize. I was lucky to win a book a few weeks ago, and even luckier when she said it was no problem to post it OS to me. I have dipped into several times already, and it's a goodie. "The New Writer's Handbook" edited by Philip Martin (Scarletta Press). It even has poems in it, and the piece on how many writers does it take to change a lightbulb is funny. The book is a combination of how-to-craft and how-to-keep-going articles, and I'm looking forward to reading more.
I also like A Newbie's Guide to Publishing by J.A. Konrath. He's posted some interesting stuff recently (and before that too) about branding and marketing, from the point of view of someone who's tried all kinds of things. His posts are straightforward, no-nonsense, and very informative.
The internet often leads you places you hadn't quite expected to go. I thought I'd see if my old high school in New Zealand has a website, and it does, but it also has a link to one of those sites where you can find old schoolfriends. So I took a look. It was fascinating, because all the people I had expected to be on a site like that, weren't, and a number of people I never would have thought would sign up, had. My school is having a 50 year reunion in 2008. That is a scary thought.
I've mentioned Clive James here before - he seems to be the most quotable person around at the moment. His latest quote was about critics. He was actually quoting Miles Davis, who said, "If I don't like what they say, I climb into my Ferrari and drive away." Obviously Mr Davis can afford a Ferrari, as probably can Mr James. I tend to imagine climbing into our old Holden Ute, cranking over the engine a few times, despairing at its failure to fire, finally getting it going and then hitting the gatepost on my way out of the driveway. Doesn't quite have the same ring, does it?
A few months ago, I added a couple of new blogs to my regular reading (I had to, since Miss Snark retired), and one is Paperback Writer, aka Lynn Viehl. She has a great blog with lots of extras - in particular, links to useful free software for writers - but she also runs a few competitions. The kind where you can post a comment and be in the hat for a prize. I was lucky to win a book a few weeks ago, and even luckier when she said it was no problem to post it OS to me. I have dipped into several times already, and it's a goodie. "The New Writer's Handbook" edited by Philip Martin (Scarletta Press). It even has poems in it, and the piece on how many writers does it take to change a lightbulb is funny. The book is a combination of how-to-craft and how-to-keep-going articles, and I'm looking forward to reading more.
I also like A Newbie's Guide to Publishing by J.A. Konrath. He's posted some interesting stuff recently (and before that too) about branding and marketing, from the point of view of someone who's tried all kinds of things. His posts are straightforward, no-nonsense, and very informative.
The internet often leads you places you hadn't quite expected to go. I thought I'd see if my old high school in New Zealand has a website, and it does, but it also has a link to one of those sites where you can find old schoolfriends. So I took a look. It was fascinating, because all the people I had expected to be on a site like that, weren't, and a number of people I never would have thought would sign up, had. My school is having a 50 year reunion in 2008. That is a scary thought.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Different Kinds of Learning
At the moment, Tracey and I are doing a 3-day training course on e-learning - all about the basics of constructing online units of study, plus the whizz-bang software that creates the fancy extras. Yesterday we had 6+ hours of "chalk and talk" - where someone stood up the front and talked. And talked. And talked. With Powerpoints instead of chalk and blackboard. We were brain-dead by the time we finished. And then we both had to go and teach classes afterwards, but for me, the opportunity to actually DO something was a great contrast.
If nothing else, yesterday was a good lesson in what not to do, in how awful it is for our students if we talk and talk and give them nothing to do, and funnily enough, it was also a good example of how not to construct an online course (i.e. lots of reading but no interaction or activities).
Today, we have been learning how to use a program called Captivate (I now can see how shaky my hand is on the mouse!) and Photostory. But I think you still have to be careful that you're not creating stuff that is like television - just sit and watch. We all know how much TV puts you to sleep!
It's still all about involvement and engagement.
A bit like a novel really. It's very easy, with all those words, to rabbit on and on, to get carried away with the way your keyboard just keeps on putting those wonderful words on the screen for you. But what about the reader? I've put a heavy emphasis this year on reader engagement, because my students are writing YA novels. Much of writing YA, to me, is about point of view, about being right inside the character's head, feelings, emotions and reasoning. Often writers unintentionally distance the reader because they're still inside their own heads (as authors) rather than the viewpoint character's.
Part of this is voice. We watched a video on Monday about John Marsden, who is still probably Australia's best-known YA writer. He said that no matter how much of the plot he had worked out, how much he'd created with setting and theme, he couldn't start writing the novel until he heard the voice of the viewpoint character/narrator in his head.
For a reader, feeling as if the character is actually talking to you (via the novel) can be totally engaging, when done well.
Maybe I need to create a narrator for my online unit... a persona... a voice...
If nothing else, yesterday was a good lesson in what not to do, in how awful it is for our students if we talk and talk and give them nothing to do, and funnily enough, it was also a good example of how not to construct an online course (i.e. lots of reading but no interaction or activities).
Today, we have been learning how to use a program called Captivate (I now can see how shaky my hand is on the mouse!) and Photostory. But I think you still have to be careful that you're not creating stuff that is like television - just sit and watch. We all know how much TV puts you to sleep!
It's still all about involvement and engagement.
A bit like a novel really. It's very easy, with all those words, to rabbit on and on, to get carried away with the way your keyboard just keeps on putting those wonderful words on the screen for you. But what about the reader? I've put a heavy emphasis this year on reader engagement, because my students are writing YA novels. Much of writing YA, to me, is about point of view, about being right inside the character's head, feelings, emotions and reasoning. Often writers unintentionally distance the reader because they're still inside their own heads (as authors) rather than the viewpoint character's.
Part of this is voice. We watched a video on Monday about John Marsden, who is still probably Australia's best-known YA writer. He said that no matter how much of the plot he had worked out, how much he'd created with setting and theme, he couldn't start writing the novel until he heard the voice of the viewpoint character/narrator in his head.
For a reader, feeling as if the character is actually talking to you (via the novel) can be totally engaging, when done well.
Maybe I need to create a narrator for my online unit... a persona... a voice...
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Book Roundup
Too much reading lately, and not enough writing, but I'm not really complaining. Reading is the best procrastination tool I know!
Kiss & Blog - Alyson Noel: Most definitely a book for teen girls. The familiar story of two girls who want to make it into the "in" group; one does, and drops the other like a hot potato. Dropped friend gets revenge via a blog that reveals the other's embarrassing secrets. Once I got past the constant use of "like" and other current language hiccups, it was a nice read. I am definitely not the target readership for this book! But I can imagine thousands of 13-14 year olds who will love it.
The Third Victim - Lisa Gardner: I'm a recent fan of Lisa G's books, and love to go back and re-read bits to see what she's doing. This book involves a school shooting by a teenage boy, but all is not what it seems. Rainie, the small-town cop who investigates, is aided and annoyed by out-of-town FBI and state police, but she has her own dark past to confront. What I also like about Lisa G's books is the way in which she holds back information to increase tension. Not everything has to be laid out straight away, but the twists in the story are worked in at just the right places.
Twilight - Stephanie Meyer: OK, I'm going to get abuse hurled at me from around the world, but this just didn't grab me. (Meyer's vampire trilogy is famous right now because the third one scored a million-copy print run.) I tried very hard to overcome my dislike of vampire stories - caused by having a number of students a few years ago who were writing really, really bad vampire novels - but by page 90 I was totally over the main character's awe and astonishment at Edward's beauty. In fact, I started itching to grab a red pen and cross out every time she mentioned the words beauty, marble, astonishing, gorgeous, etc. And I thought if she lost her breath one more time (or her breath caught in her throat) at his beauty, she was probably going to keel over and die.
This is a romance. With a vampire. Meyer has rewritten a few of the traditional rules about vampires, which helps to make it a little less predictable. There was only one part where I really felt any sense of tension in the story, but I can't tell you where because it will ruin the book if you plan to read it. And I have the other two books to go yet... But they are still worth reading, if only so I can think about why they are so popular.
Promise Me - Harlan Coben: Coben has a main character who is a little different from most crime investigators. Myron is a rep for sports stars and celebrities, but you see little of this in Promise Me. Myron makes the mistake of giving a friend's daughter a ride home one night, but then the girl goes missing. Another missing girl comes into the equation, and Myron investigates both (he's a suspect for a while). Coben is a good writer, but not a favourite of mine. Somehow Myron never really comes alive for me. He always seems a bit "manufactured". Maybe it's the sports rep thing - I just want a PI or a policeman/woman. Too traditional of me.
Kiss & Blog - Alyson Noel: Most definitely a book for teen girls. The familiar story of two girls who want to make it into the "in" group; one does, and drops the other like a hot potato. Dropped friend gets revenge via a blog that reveals the other's embarrassing secrets. Once I got past the constant use of "like" and other current language hiccups, it was a nice read. I am definitely not the target readership for this book! But I can imagine thousands of 13-14 year olds who will love it.
The Third Victim - Lisa Gardner: I'm a recent fan of Lisa G's books, and love to go back and re-read bits to see what she's doing. This book involves a school shooting by a teenage boy, but all is not what it seems. Rainie, the small-town cop who investigates, is aided and annoyed by out-of-town FBI and state police, but she has her own dark past to confront. What I also like about Lisa G's books is the way in which she holds back information to increase tension. Not everything has to be laid out straight away, but the twists in the story are worked in at just the right places.
Twilight - Stephanie Meyer: OK, I'm going to get abuse hurled at me from around the world, but this just didn't grab me. (Meyer's vampire trilogy is famous right now because the third one scored a million-copy print run.) I tried very hard to overcome my dislike of vampire stories - caused by having a number of students a few years ago who were writing really, really bad vampire novels - but by page 90 I was totally over the main character's awe and astonishment at Edward's beauty. In fact, I started itching to grab a red pen and cross out every time she mentioned the words beauty, marble, astonishing, gorgeous, etc. And I thought if she lost her breath one more time (or her breath caught in her throat) at his beauty, she was probably going to keel over and die.
This is a romance. With a vampire. Meyer has rewritten a few of the traditional rules about vampires, which helps to make it a little less predictable. There was only one part where I really felt any sense of tension in the story, but I can't tell you where because it will ruin the book if you plan to read it. And I have the other two books to go yet... But they are still worth reading, if only so I can think about why they are so popular.
Promise Me - Harlan Coben: Coben has a main character who is a little different from most crime investigators. Myron is a rep for sports stars and celebrities, but you see little of this in Promise Me. Myron makes the mistake of giving a friend's daughter a ride home one night, but then the girl goes missing. Another missing girl comes into the equation, and Myron investigates both (he's a suspect for a while). Coben is a good writer, but not a favourite of mine. Somehow Myron never really comes alive for me. He always seems a bit "manufactured". Maybe it's the sports rep thing - I just want a PI or a policeman/woman. Too traditional of me.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Artist as Teacher
This is at the east end of Altona Beach, looking towards the city. A nice place to walk, even when you're feeling lazy. Like today.In yesterday's Age newspaper, there was a feature on abstract painter, Yvonne Audette, who teaches painting as well as being a recognised artist (her next exhibition is at the Ian Potter Centre here in Melbourne). When asked why she keeps teaching, she says:
"Two things. By teaching the artists, I inspire them. But I also inspire myself. By talking about everything that's important to me, it's like a ball bouncing against a wall, it comes straight back to you. I go away replenished and renewed with ideas. I couldn't paint as well and work as well if I didn't have students to teach. I've only just begun to realise how valuable it is."
It's interesting to hear an artist in another area (painting) talk about what teaching gives back to her. Writing teachers often have these discussions - does teaching enrich you or just drain you of all creativity? I know my friend T was told at a prestigious writing workshop that doing both teaching and writing was impossible and she should give up teaching.
But the reality for many is that teaching pays the bills. The problem that arises really lies in whether you enjoy the teaching or not. If you don't - if you do it just for the money - it probably will kill some of your writing, but which bits? The desire? The creativity? The urge to tell your story? The pleasure of creating and living with your characters?
I like Audette's comment re talking about the skills and the craft to students and how it comes back to you - for me, explaining things such as how to deepen your characters, improve dialogue, add sensory details, examining what is a telling detail, finding excerpts that will show these elements at work ... it all adds to my own writing. I don't think I will ever stop learning how to improve my own stories and poems, and teaching strengthens your own skills as well as the students. If I count my years in community arts, running workshops and classes, as well as the years in Professional Writing & Editing, that's a lot of teaching. And I'm always finding new things to learn and pass on. Like most writing teachers, I don't enjoy grading, but I do like workshopping where you have the opportunity to "open new doors" in terms of the possibilities for a piece of writing.
But I also love the holidays. Write, write, write. Read, read, read.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
The Human Writer
It was tempting to call this post "The Sub-Human Writer" or "The Normal Writer", but it's only in writers' circles/groups that being a writer is normal - to the rest of the world, especially our families, we are often just weird. As for Sub-Human, I think that's how you feel when you're working two or three jobs and trying to write as well (I think I have taken on Job Number Four now as Building Project Manager, but I don't want to think about that).
So, the Human Writer:
* can stay up until 3am to write that novel every now and then, but suffers for it for days afterwards and tends to fall asleep at dinner time, resulting in a face covered in risotto
* staggers around the library wondering who the hell wrote all these books, and why wasn't it me?
* looks for their own book in the library catalogue, and then finds it on the shelf and puts it on the Great Reads display
* looks for their own book in the bookshops and puts it facing out on the shelf, in front of the latest best-seller
* often gets depressed or down-hearted, often starts wondering about that job advertised at Pizza Hut
* has a ritual fire every now and then and burns rejection letters
* writes short stories occasionally, just as a mental break from novels, and wishes that you could still earn good money from them
* fails to manage other aspects of life and constantly sees writing time shrinking like the woolly top in hot water
* fails to manage family so they constantly infringe on writing time (and are resentful and complain about burnt dinners and piles of books everywhere and housework undone)
* networks with great effort and is prone to putting foot into mouth, but loves getting together with other writers and just talking about writing and books - it's the best!
* truly celebrates the writing successes of friends
* often has one published writer who is a bete noir and causes deep feelings of envy that are well-concealed (because it's a small world)
* recognises rewriting is crucial and is always looking for ways to become a better self-editor
* is a keen reader and gets through as many books as possible, while reading as a writer at the same time (which sometimes mars the enjoyment but is always fruitful)
* writes poems as well and loves the language-stretching that poetry inspires
* is never invited to speak at festivals and conferences because fame hasn't hit yet, and privately is OK about it because public speaking is pretty scary
* loves to celebrate achievements with champagne and wishes there were more, and too bad about the hangover
* suffers from blurry eyesight and RSI on a regular basis, but figures it's worth it, and is also doing stretches and exercises to make sure the extra computer hours don't do too much damage
* has a regular blog and hopes to be connecting with other writers and readers
* is spectacularly unphotogenic so that all author photos look terrible, and hiding behind a pile of books by other people is not an option so one day (when the big book - the break-through one - gets published) promises self a studio portrait that can be flashed anywhere without cringing.
So, the Human Writer:
* can stay up until 3am to write that novel every now and then, but suffers for it for days afterwards and tends to fall asleep at dinner time, resulting in a face covered in risotto
* staggers around the library wondering who the hell wrote all these books, and why wasn't it me?
* looks for their own book in the library catalogue, and then finds it on the shelf and puts it on the Great Reads display
* looks for their own book in the bookshops and puts it facing out on the shelf, in front of the latest best-seller
* often gets depressed or down-hearted, often starts wondering about that job advertised at Pizza Hut
* has a ritual fire every now and then and burns rejection letters
* writes short stories occasionally, just as a mental break from novels, and wishes that you could still earn good money from them
* fails to manage other aspects of life and constantly sees writing time shrinking like the woolly top in hot water
* fails to manage family so they constantly infringe on writing time (and are resentful and complain about burnt dinners and piles of books everywhere and housework undone)
* networks with great effort and is prone to putting foot into mouth, but loves getting together with other writers and just talking about writing and books - it's the best!
* truly celebrates the writing successes of friends
* often has one published writer who is a bete noir and causes deep feelings of envy that are well-concealed (because it's a small world)
* recognises rewriting is crucial and is always looking for ways to become a better self-editor
* is a keen reader and gets through as many books as possible, while reading as a writer at the same time (which sometimes mars the enjoyment but is always fruitful)
* writes poems as well and loves the language-stretching that poetry inspires
* is never invited to speak at festivals and conferences because fame hasn't hit yet, and privately is OK about it because public speaking is pretty scary
* loves to celebrate achievements with champagne and wishes there were more, and too bad about the hangover
* suffers from blurry eyesight and RSI on a regular basis, but figures it's worth it, and is also doing stretches and exercises to make sure the extra computer hours don't do too much damage
* has a regular blog and hopes to be connecting with other writers and readers
* is spectacularly unphotogenic so that all author photos look terrible, and hiding behind a pile of books by other people is not an option so one day (when the big book - the break-through one - gets published) promises self a studio portrait that can be flashed anywhere without cringing.
Friday, September 07, 2007
The Super-Human Writer:
* can stay up until 3am every night for weeks to finish that novel
* leaps tall library stacks in a single bound
* can find any book in the library catalogue, and then on the shelf
* never gets depressed or down-hearted, never starts wondering about that job advertised at Pizza Hut
* makes paper aeroplanes out of rejection letters and flings them into the air, laughing
* writes short stories regularly, just as a mental break from novels, and gets them published
* manages every other aspect of life so it never infringes on writing time
* manages family so they never infringe on writing time (and are never resentful)
* networks effortlessly and never puts foot into mouth
* loves rewriting and is an excellent self-editor
* is a super-fast reader and gets through 3-4 books a week
* writes poems as well and also gets them published
* is invited to speak at festivals and conferences and has the audience rolling in the aisles with laughter as well as marvelling at the intelligent, inspiring speeches
* loves to celebrate achievements with champagne but never gets a hangover
* never suffers from blurry eyesight
* has a regular blog that is intelligent, witty and often-quoted
* is spectacularly photogenic so that all author photos look glamorous, gorgeous and natural.
* leaps tall library stacks in a single bound
* can find any book in the library catalogue, and then on the shelf
* never gets depressed or down-hearted, never starts wondering about that job advertised at Pizza Hut
* makes paper aeroplanes out of rejection letters and flings them into the air, laughing
* writes short stories regularly, just as a mental break from novels, and gets them published
* manages every other aspect of life so it never infringes on writing time
* manages family so they never infringe on writing time (and are never resentful)
* networks effortlessly and never puts foot into mouth
* loves rewriting and is an excellent self-editor
* is a super-fast reader and gets through 3-4 books a week
* writes poems as well and also gets them published
* is invited to speak at festivals and conferences and has the audience rolling in the aisles with laughter as well as marvelling at the intelligent, inspiring speeches
* loves to celebrate achievements with champagne but never gets a hangover
* never suffers from blurry eyesight
* has a regular blog that is intelligent, witty and often-quoted
* is spectacularly photogenic so that all author photos look glamorous, gorgeous and natural.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
What Matters
I've been re-reading a collection of essays by poet Richard Hugo - The Triggering Town (published by Norton) - and in particular, one called "In Defense of Creative-Writing Classes". He talks about creative writing in academia, the negative attitudes and dismissals of writing as something that can be taught (a familiar line that gets trotted out in the arts sections of newspapers every so often). However, towards the end of the essay, he talks about what is important in a creative writing class, something he first learned 38 years ago in a high school English class:
"... I've seen the world tell us with wars and real estate developments and bad politics and odd court decisions that our lives don't matter ... When we are told in dozens of insidious ways that our lives don't matter, we may be forced to insist, often far too loudly, that they do. A creative-writing class maybe be one of the last places you can go where your life still matters." and "If a lot of people were not already willing to run from their lives, the demand for creative-writing classes would be greater. Disappearing into the hugeness of system is not unattractive ... something pulls us back from that tempting disappearance. Call it the obsessive and irresistible love of being alive, if you can stand the rhetoric. It is born of the certainty we will disappear fast enough. Oblivion needs no help from us."
This has struck home for me, perhaps because I've just been to the Writers' Festival, perhaps because I teach creative writing ... or perhaps because it reminded me forcefully of my sister, who died 7 years ago, of cancer. In the last months, I asked her about her days - I guess I was asking how she kept going - and she said that she took great pleasure in living in the moment. If she was hanging out the washing on a fine day, she would take a few minutes to enjoy the sun and the breeze and the smell of clean clothes and the birds in the trees ... you get the picture.
How many of us do that? How many of us take pleasure in simply having written? In being able to write down how we feel, or record a family story, or create a poem?
When was the last time you quietly sat for a few moments in the spring sunshine, put your face up to the light and breathed? Without thinking about water restrictions or sun screen or weeding the garden or a million other "necessities"? When was the last time you left your mobile phone at home on purpose and felt free rather than stressed about it? When was the last time you gave someone a hug just because it felt good?
How aware are you of truly living in the moment every now and then, and letting the rest of it fall away?
"... I've seen the world tell us with wars and real estate developments and bad politics and odd court decisions that our lives don't matter ... When we are told in dozens of insidious ways that our lives don't matter, we may be forced to insist, often far too loudly, that they do. A creative-writing class maybe be one of the last places you can go where your life still matters." and "If a lot of people were not already willing to run from their lives, the demand for creative-writing classes would be greater. Disappearing into the hugeness of system is not unattractive ... something pulls us back from that tempting disappearance. Call it the obsessive and irresistible love of being alive, if you can stand the rhetoric. It is born of the certainty we will disappear fast enough. Oblivion needs no help from us."
This has struck home for me, perhaps because I've just been to the Writers' Festival, perhaps because I teach creative writing ... or perhaps because it reminded me forcefully of my sister, who died 7 years ago, of cancer. In the last months, I asked her about her days - I guess I was asking how she kept going - and she said that she took great pleasure in living in the moment. If she was hanging out the washing on a fine day, she would take a few minutes to enjoy the sun and the breeze and the smell of clean clothes and the birds in the trees ... you get the picture.
How many of us do that? How many of us take pleasure in simply having written? In being able to write down how we feel, or record a family story, or create a poem?
When was the last time you quietly sat for a few moments in the spring sunshine, put your face up to the light and breathed? Without thinking about water restrictions or sun screen or weeding the garden or a million other "necessities"? When was the last time you left your mobile phone at home on purpose and felt free rather than stressed about it? When was the last time you gave someone a hug just because it felt good?
How aware are you of truly living in the moment every now and then, and letting the rest of it fall away?
Monday, September 03, 2007
Why Festival... Why Not?
Today in class, I asked who had been to something at the Writers' Festival. Two people. Admittedly I hadn't specifically asked this class to go (but my poetry class was supposed to attend at least one session - won't that be interesting when they all have to admit non-attendance). But then I have to ask - why not? It's on for 10 days - it's not like they've got a full booking sheet for 10 days in a row (and this is not really the time of year for major assignments to be due).
I know that for some it's a money issue, with many tickets costing $12 concession, and for some it's a family issue, with kids to organise. But surely they could manage one session ...?
Maybe it's a matter of perception. One perception is that last year's festival (and the ones before) were boring, with little to offer the new writer, so why should this year be different? That may be true, but I'd say: read the program - there were tons of things to choose from. I'd also say that that perception partly stems from NOT READING - festivals always look boring when there are a lot of writers there you've never heard of. Hello? If you read more widely, not only might you have heard of some of the writers, but you'd also be far more open to listening to writers unknown to you. I'd never heard of Vendela Vida before, but I was interested in her topic - rewriting - and ended up buying one of her books.
Some students have complained in the past that writers spend all their time in the sessions promoting their latest book. True. This year it seemed to have been mostly solved. Writers talked about writing, and left the promos at home (in most cases, but not all, judging by some eavesdropping I did!).
This year, most speakers I heard seemed to have left the academic-type, dry papers at home and talked freely and with energy from their notes. One person tried to wing it, and was a miserable speaker - the others showed him up.
Students have also complained that the festival is impersonal - when around 340,000 tickets are sold, that's a lot of people interested in books and writing milling around. Rather than complain that the writers are "distant" (translate that to "staying out of range"), grab a coffee and sit for a while and people-watch. You'll probably get some good story ideas, especially if you eavesdrop.
While I enjoy going to the festival and meeting up with people, I also like going on my own, choosing my own sessions and just taking up the "sponge position". I wrote a poem at a book launch, got several ideas in different sessions that I wrote down so I wouldn't forget them, and gathered a great collection of quotes. I came away feeling like being a writer was a good thing to be, regardless of how hard the road might seem.
I know that for some it's a money issue, with many tickets costing $12 concession, and for some it's a family issue, with kids to organise. But surely they could manage one session ...?
Maybe it's a matter of perception. One perception is that last year's festival (and the ones before) were boring, with little to offer the new writer, so why should this year be different? That may be true, but I'd say: read the program - there were tons of things to choose from. I'd also say that that perception partly stems from NOT READING - festivals always look boring when there are a lot of writers there you've never heard of. Hello? If you read more widely, not only might you have heard of some of the writers, but you'd also be far more open to listening to writers unknown to you. I'd never heard of Vendela Vida before, but I was interested in her topic - rewriting - and ended up buying one of her books.
Some students have complained in the past that writers spend all their time in the sessions promoting their latest book. True. This year it seemed to have been mostly solved. Writers talked about writing, and left the promos at home (in most cases, but not all, judging by some eavesdropping I did!).
This year, most speakers I heard seemed to have left the academic-type, dry papers at home and talked freely and with energy from their notes. One person tried to wing it, and was a miserable speaker - the others showed him up.
Students have also complained that the festival is impersonal - when around 340,000 tickets are sold, that's a lot of people interested in books and writing milling around. Rather than complain that the writers are "distant" (translate that to "staying out of range"), grab a coffee and sit for a while and people-watch. You'll probably get some good story ideas, especially if you eavesdrop.
While I enjoy going to the festival and meeting up with people, I also like going on my own, choosing my own sessions and just taking up the "sponge position". I wrote a poem at a book launch, got several ideas in different sessions that I wrote down so I wouldn't forget them, and gathered a great collection of quotes. I came away feeling like being a writer was a good thing to be, regardless of how hard the road might seem.
Sunday, September 02, 2007
MWF - Forensics and Furballs
"Send it to Forensics" had three very different writers on the panel. Liz Porter writes true crime, and her book Written on the Skin has just been a co-winner in the Ned Kelly Awards. It's a compilation of interesting cases solved via forensic science, but she was at pains to point out that only a small minority of cases are solved this way. Most often, the forensics back up or confirm what the police already knew, and the backlog of evidence waiting for processing in the labs means police can't wait on it to solve crimes. Things like tyre tracks or teeth or boot marks rarely match 100%, and when they do, it's called a "CSI moment" (it's a joke).
Novel writers are usually much better at getting the details and research right - films and TV take a lot of liberties. Often true crime is too weird to use in fiction!
Georgina Hayden is a forensic linguistic expert - she analyses recordings of voices, either for the police or the defense. A typical job for her is to compare two tapes of voices and analyse vowel sounds, accents and socio-economic features - very tedious but important to get right.
Karin Slaughter said the real facts about forensics are fascinating, but she gets to "make all that crap up". In reality, she spends a huge amount of time researching methods of violence and murder, as well as investigation techniques, probably as much as a real murderer. In fact, she said, she hopes the FBI never gets a look at her research!
She doesn't want her stories and solutions to turn on forensic details - they are more about the realities of investigations, and her characters offer descriptions for the reader (rather than the author stepping in and providing it). The most complaint letters she ever received was when she let a nasty guy get away at the end of a book, proving that readers want to see justice done.
Going Long - this final session I attended felt like it went way too long. I am starting to suspect that when the facilitator encourages the writers to read from their work, it means she/he can't come up with enough decent questions to fill the time.
The session was supposed to be about short story writers who turned to novel writing, and the why and how of this move. We began with a warning from the facilitator, Melanie Ostell, that no one was allowed to ask questions about getting published, only about craft. Hmmmm.
Deborah Robertson and Ewan Morrison vaguely answered wandering questions about writing short fiction compared to novels, but neither offered anything insightful or interesting. Maybe I was suffering from too many sessions? Maybe I was suffering from insight overload from writers such as Cate Kennedy and Jeffrey Deaver, both of whom clearly had thought about their own processes and were able to articulate and explain what it was they thought they were doing. They also had interesting or humorous anecdotes to add to what they were saying.
I guess this is the difference, too, between writers who are used to appearing in public and discussing their writing and the job of being a writer. Less experienced/famous writers haven't yet built up their store of things to say; it's an art to talk about your stories and characters and craft and yet each time to make it sound new and revelatory.
(I also wonder if literary writers are sometimes less articulate about their craft because they are scared of self-analysing the "how" of writing in case it blocks them in some way. Just a thought.)
The other side of that is the writer who has done it way too many times. Years ago, I interviewed Terri McMillan ("Waiting to Exhale") who had obviously done a million interviews and was very bored and irritable at having to do yet another one. It was only when I started asking lots of questions about other stuff (not the standard ten questions everyone asks) that she livened up and became friendly.
Overall, I thought this year's festival was the best in a long time. The staggered sessions meant the foyer crush was avoided, and the wide range of things on offer meant that although many sessions weren't booked out, overall attendance (so they said) was higher. There were also some free sessions for those who couldn't afford to attend a lot of the ticketed things, which usually means students can attend.
Weirdest thing at the festival? Walking around the book tables in the bookshop and feeling the gravel move and crunch under the mats under your feet. Hard to describe, but weird all the same. Worst thing? The lack of fresh air (or any air) in the Tower Room when it got warm.
Best thing? Cate Kennedy.
Novel writers are usually much better at getting the details and research right - films and TV take a lot of liberties. Often true crime is too weird to use in fiction!
Georgina Hayden is a forensic linguistic expert - she analyses recordings of voices, either for the police or the defense. A typical job for her is to compare two tapes of voices and analyse vowel sounds, accents and socio-economic features - very tedious but important to get right.
Karin Slaughter said the real facts about forensics are fascinating, but she gets to "make all that crap up". In reality, she spends a huge amount of time researching methods of violence and murder, as well as investigation techniques, probably as much as a real murderer. In fact, she said, she hopes the FBI never gets a look at her research!
She doesn't want her stories and solutions to turn on forensic details - they are more about the realities of investigations, and her characters offer descriptions for the reader (rather than the author stepping in and providing it). The most complaint letters she ever received was when she let a nasty guy get away at the end of a book, proving that readers want to see justice done.
Going Long - this final session I attended felt like it went way too long. I am starting to suspect that when the facilitator encourages the writers to read from their work, it means she/he can't come up with enough decent questions to fill the time.
The session was supposed to be about short story writers who turned to novel writing, and the why and how of this move. We began with a warning from the facilitator, Melanie Ostell, that no one was allowed to ask questions about getting published, only about craft. Hmmmm.
Deborah Robertson and Ewan Morrison vaguely answered wandering questions about writing short fiction compared to novels, but neither offered anything insightful or interesting. Maybe I was suffering from too many sessions? Maybe I was suffering from insight overload from writers such as Cate Kennedy and Jeffrey Deaver, both of whom clearly had thought about their own processes and were able to articulate and explain what it was they thought they were doing. They also had interesting or humorous anecdotes to add to what they were saying.
I guess this is the difference, too, between writers who are used to appearing in public and discussing their writing and the job of being a writer. Less experienced/famous writers haven't yet built up their store of things to say; it's an art to talk about your stories and characters and craft and yet each time to make it sound new and revelatory.
(I also wonder if literary writers are sometimes less articulate about their craft because they are scared of self-analysing the "how" of writing in case it blocks them in some way. Just a thought.)
The other side of that is the writer who has done it way too many times. Years ago, I interviewed Terri McMillan ("Waiting to Exhale") who had obviously done a million interviews and was very bored and irritable at having to do yet another one. It was only when I started asking lots of questions about other stuff (not the standard ten questions everyone asks) that she livened up and became friendly.
Overall, I thought this year's festival was the best in a long time. The staggered sessions meant the foyer crush was avoided, and the wide range of things on offer meant that although many sessions weren't booked out, overall attendance (so they said) was higher. There were also some free sessions for those who couldn't afford to attend a lot of the ticketed things, which usually means students can attend.
Weirdest thing at the festival? Walking around the book tables in the bookshop and feeling the gravel move and crunch under the mats under your feet. Hard to describe, but weird all the same. Worst thing? The lack of fresh air (or any air) in the Tower Room when it got warm.
Best thing? Cate Kennedy.
MWF - John Tranter
I'm feeling a bit festivalled-out, after 12 sessions - yes, I did get a bit carried away when booking, but most sessions have been great, and it would have been hard to judge which ones were going to be the duds. So an 83% success rate was pretty good. And my qualms about parking, which is often an issue in the Sturt Street area, came to nothing, as I found a parking spot relatively easily each day.
So, I might just talk about Session 1 today, and cover the other two in another post.
"Making It New" featured poet John Tranter, and he ranged over a number of interesting topics. He is the editor of the online journal, Jacket, so is not just interested in books but also what online publishing can achieve. He talked first about his life as material, and said his early childhood and growing up years in the country are "ruptured" from his life now - he can't go back. His poems tend to be about urban topics. When asked if he was a magpie in terms of gathering ideas, he said he preferred butcher bird (nice song) or kingfisher (hunter). He often provides notes to his poems, as sometimes you can't know what the reader will see in a poem and he wants to make sure they don't miss anything. Putting poems online allows him to add not just notes but also pictures and images.
He thinks of poems as primarily being on the page - a poet who writes for performance tends to be catering too much for audience approval. A poem that is only heard must give up all of its meaning in one hearing (no chance to go back and read again). He said some poets write too much, and put out too many books.
Putting poetry online or in electronic form solves many of the distribution problems. In ten years, Jacket has had 600,000 hits to its main page. He once, through Sydney University, put a whole book of his online, and it was getting 1500 hits a month, whereas the library copy was only borrowed twice. But he also said time has shown that a book put online will actually generate greater sales for the hard copy version.
He has republished two of his other books via POD, and says it is also a viable form of publishing and keeping books in print.
So, I might just talk about Session 1 today, and cover the other two in another post.
"Making It New" featured poet John Tranter, and he ranged over a number of interesting topics. He is the editor of the online journal, Jacket, so is not just interested in books but also what online publishing can achieve. He talked first about his life as material, and said his early childhood and growing up years in the country are "ruptured" from his life now - he can't go back. His poems tend to be about urban topics. When asked if he was a magpie in terms of gathering ideas, he said he preferred butcher bird (nice song) or kingfisher (hunter). He often provides notes to his poems, as sometimes you can't know what the reader will see in a poem and he wants to make sure they don't miss anything. Putting poems online allows him to add not just notes but also pictures and images.
He thinks of poems as primarily being on the page - a poet who writes for performance tends to be catering too much for audience approval. A poem that is only heard must give up all of its meaning in one hearing (no chance to go back and read again). He said some poets write too much, and put out too many books.
Putting poetry online or in electronic form solves many of the distribution problems. In ten years, Jacket has had 600,000 hits to its main page. He once, through Sydney University, put a whole book of his online, and it was getting 1500 hits a month, whereas the library copy was only borrowed twice. But he also said time has shown that a book put online will actually generate greater sales for the hard copy version.
He has republished two of his other books via POD, and says it is also a viable form of publishing and keeping books in print.
Saturday, September 01, 2007
MWF - Louis Sachar and John Marsden ...
... and Agnes Nieuwenhuizen, with Lili Wilkinson as "boss". This session was in the program as The Hormone Rush, meaning it was about books for teens. No one seemed very impressed with that title, least of all Agnes.
Her new book is Right Book, Right Time, and is about great books for young readers, mostly YA. She talked about how the book is structured, and also showed examples of books she loves, including those by Meg Rosoff, American Born Chinese (won the Printz Award this year - it's a graphic novel), The Arrival by Shaun Tan and Centre of the World (which I can't find on Google but is translated from German - no author, sorry).
Louis Sachar started writing in 1976, and was told his books couldn't be published overseas because they were too American. Holes changed all that when it won several national awards. He says he writes two hours a day, sometimes less, and doesn't use an outline. While he's writing, he gets lots of ideas and puts them all in, but the first draft is terrible so subsequent drafts are about cutting and getting rid of what doesn't work. By the time he gets to the final draft, it's not that the book is perfect but that he has simply had enough of it.
Every draft is a series of questions - does this work? does this fit? He never talks to anyone about a book while he's writing it - by not talking about it, the energy stays there and forces him to write (this reminded me of things I've heard before - that if you talk about your book, you talk it out of yourself and the urge to write it dies).
John Marsden said he started writing by editing each bit as he went - which was a crippling process. He finally decided to write in a different way, by completing the whole draft before re-reading it. He also decided to write for teenagers at that time. His two "rules" are that he never uses contemporary slang (he tries to use timeless language), and he reinvents the old stories - plots are eternal, and he believes that the themes and ideas that appealed to him when he was young are the same universal things that appeal to kids and teens now.
The current vogue for fun as a principle in everything leaves him cold - fun is nice but there are better things to motivate kids with, such as the acquisition of knowledge and wisdom. Kids of 13 or 14 have many interests other than having fun, and we should cater to all those other interests as well. He looks for integrity in a book.
All of the speakers felt that if you write the best book that you can, it will find an audience. And they also agreed that there is only so much time you can spend physically writing before the words go "stale". Lili finished by quoting Les Murray (poet) from another session: "There is writing, and there is writing down. I write 24 hours a day, but I might only spend half an hour writing down."
Her new book is Right Book, Right Time, and is about great books for young readers, mostly YA. She talked about how the book is structured, and also showed examples of books she loves, including those by Meg Rosoff, American Born Chinese (won the Printz Award this year - it's a graphic novel), The Arrival by Shaun Tan and Centre of the World (which I can't find on Google but is translated from German - no author, sorry).
Louis Sachar started writing in 1976, and was told his books couldn't be published overseas because they were too American. Holes changed all that when it won several national awards. He says he writes two hours a day, sometimes less, and doesn't use an outline. While he's writing, he gets lots of ideas and puts them all in, but the first draft is terrible so subsequent drafts are about cutting and getting rid of what doesn't work. By the time he gets to the final draft, it's not that the book is perfect but that he has simply had enough of it.
Every draft is a series of questions - does this work? does this fit? He never talks to anyone about a book while he's writing it - by not talking about it, the energy stays there and forces him to write (this reminded me of things I've heard before - that if you talk about your book, you talk it out of yourself and the urge to write it dies).
John Marsden said he started writing by editing each bit as he went - which was a crippling process. He finally decided to write in a different way, by completing the whole draft before re-reading it. He also decided to write for teenagers at that time. His two "rules" are that he never uses contemporary slang (he tries to use timeless language), and he reinvents the old stories - plots are eternal, and he believes that the themes and ideas that appealed to him when he was young are the same universal things that appeal to kids and teens now.
The current vogue for fun as a principle in everything leaves him cold - fun is nice but there are better things to motivate kids with, such as the acquisition of knowledge and wisdom. Kids of 13 or 14 have many interests other than having fun, and we should cater to all those other interests as well. He looks for integrity in a book.
All of the speakers felt that if you write the best book that you can, it will find an audience. And they also agreed that there is only so much time you can spend physically writing before the words go "stale". Lili finished by quoting Les Murray (poet) from another session: "There is writing, and there is writing down. I write 24 hours a day, but I might only spend half an hour writing down."
Thursday, August 30, 2007
MWF - Voice and Crime Writing
Two excellent sessions today. It does seem that the focus of the festival has changed to a more relaxed approach. In past years, speakers have often delivered papers that have been either theoretical or analytical, but this year I've found most people are working from good notes but also ad libbing more and telling anecdotes and experiences, which is so much more engaging.
The Still, Small Voice
Emily Ballou wondered if it was the "still, small voice" or the "still small voice", given that all of the speakers were women and most of the audience was! In answer to the question: how do you find your voice? she says she can't practise voice - it's a gift or a beautiful visitor. All you can do is write and write, and then search for evidence of it. Is the one true internal voice a myth? She uses different voices for different kinds of writing and feels her fictional voice will shift and grow. She also sees voice as the heartbeat of a novel, rather than a style.
Cate Kennedy says when you sit small and still is when the writing and inspiration come. Voice only works for her when she senses the writer is saying something particular and true, otherwise it's all form and no content (or all hat and no head!)
"I want to give you something to eat ... something you've been hungering for without knowing it." The best reader responses she gets are to the most ordinary, everyday things in her stories. The thing that is most powerful in writing is the metaphor, that you invite the reader into that room with the metaphor and let them find what they want in it. Sound and rhythm is also important, that it should be what the writing floats on but the reader will be hardly aware of it. She also thought that writers move from writing to explore their own emotions to writing to evoke emotions in the reader.
In question time, Emily said that people are reading too much stuff that has no rhythm (in the words and language) - the more you read Dan-Brown-type books, the less you are able to read writers like Cormac McCarthy and Don de Lillo.
The more I hear Cate Kennedy, the more admiration I have for her intelligent and thoughtful commentary on writing and what it is to write fiction and poetry. (Emily Ballou was good too! Dorothy Porter was a no-show for this session.)
Profiler
This session was about crime writing, with the focus on main characters - the fictional detectives. Quinton Jardine has 26 books published, and writes 2000 words a day. Yes, one of those things does lead to the other!
He wrote his first draft of his first book by hand, and will never do so again - he has terrible handwriting. His first decision was to have a main character who is a DCC, which is a high position in the force. His books are as much about the subordinates Skinner works with as him, and they all work on crimes. Jardine said he thought he was probably writing police soap opera, but that was OK by him!
Leah Giarratano is a new writer (who is a psychologist) and she provided a Powerpoint on her two main characters, profiling them psychologically - their backstory and what makes them tick. She also talked about interrogation and how to work out if someone is lying to you. Everyone was very attentive at that point.
Gabrielle Lord is a very experienced crime writer. I remember interviewing her on 3CR radio years ago and she is such a professional. She talked about her characters, but also about the forensic knowledge and tech knowledge a writer has to have these days. She has studied courses in anatomy, anthrax, SCAN techniques (a science analysis tool) and skull reconstruction. She also does a lot of personal research with experts in their fields. She said, "Most crime is stupid and brutal and unconscious and hateful" and the writer needs to write about crime that is more interesting to the reader. She has two series characters, and knows when she gets a story idea whether it will suit the male or female character by "the feel of it".
And if you want to know one of those lying giveaways? Leah G. called it "the liar's lean", when the person is either leaning back from you, or has one leg stretched out (wanting subconsciously to get away).
The Still, Small Voice
Emily Ballou wondered if it was the "still, small voice" or the "still small voice", given that all of the speakers were women and most of the audience was! In answer to the question: how do you find your voice? she says she can't practise voice - it's a gift or a beautiful visitor. All you can do is write and write, and then search for evidence of it. Is the one true internal voice a myth? She uses different voices for different kinds of writing and feels her fictional voice will shift and grow. She also sees voice as the heartbeat of a novel, rather than a style.
Cate Kennedy says when you sit small and still is when the writing and inspiration come. Voice only works for her when she senses the writer is saying something particular and true, otherwise it's all form and no content (or all hat and no head!)
"I want to give you something to eat ... something you've been hungering for without knowing it." The best reader responses she gets are to the most ordinary, everyday things in her stories. The thing that is most powerful in writing is the metaphor, that you invite the reader into that room with the metaphor and let them find what they want in it. Sound and rhythm is also important, that it should be what the writing floats on but the reader will be hardly aware of it. She also thought that writers move from writing to explore their own emotions to writing to evoke emotions in the reader.
In question time, Emily said that people are reading too much stuff that has no rhythm (in the words and language) - the more you read Dan-Brown-type books, the less you are able to read writers like Cormac McCarthy and Don de Lillo.
The more I hear Cate Kennedy, the more admiration I have for her intelligent and thoughtful commentary on writing and what it is to write fiction and poetry. (Emily Ballou was good too! Dorothy Porter was a no-show for this session.)
Profiler
This session was about crime writing, with the focus on main characters - the fictional detectives. Quinton Jardine has 26 books published, and writes 2000 words a day. Yes, one of those things does lead to the other!
He wrote his first draft of his first book by hand, and will never do so again - he has terrible handwriting. His first decision was to have a main character who is a DCC, which is a high position in the force. His books are as much about the subordinates Skinner works with as him, and they all work on crimes. Jardine said he thought he was probably writing police soap opera, but that was OK by him!
Leah Giarratano is a new writer (who is a psychologist) and she provided a Powerpoint on her two main characters, profiling them psychologically - their backstory and what makes them tick. She also talked about interrogation and how to work out if someone is lying to you. Everyone was very attentive at that point.
Gabrielle Lord is a very experienced crime writer. I remember interviewing her on 3CR radio years ago and she is such a professional. She talked about her characters, but also about the forensic knowledge and tech knowledge a writer has to have these days. She has studied courses in anatomy, anthrax, SCAN techniques (a science analysis tool) and skull reconstruction. She also does a lot of personal research with experts in their fields. She said, "Most crime is stupid and brutal and unconscious and hateful" and the writer needs to write about crime that is more interesting to the reader. She has two series characters, and knows when she gets a story idea whether it will suit the male or female character by "the feel of it".
And if you want to know one of those lying giveaways? Leah G. called it "the liar's lean", when the person is either leaning back from you, or has one leg stretched out (wanting subconsciously to get away).
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
This Meme Thing
I've been meaning to do the Seven Things that Inspire Me meme, but this one came up on Paperback Writer's blog, so here goes:
Four jobs I've had or currently have in my life:
1. Writer
2. Librarian
3. Barmaid
4. Hospital cleaner
Four countries I've been to:
1. Hong Kong
2. USA
3. South Africa
4. Rhodesia (when it was still called that)
Four places I'd rather be right now:
1. Tucson
2. Whangarei (NZ)
3. Hamilton Island
4. Yosemite
Four foods I like to eat:
1. Curry
2. Barramundi (fish)
3. Trifle
4. Grilled cheese on toast
Four books you've read or are currently reading:
1. Chapter by Chapter - Heather Sellars
2. Friend of the Devil - Peter Robinson
3. Athletic Shorts - Chris Crutcher
4. A Good Day to Die - Simon Kernick
Four words or phrases you would like to see used more often:
1. I'm having a good day.
2. Thank you.
3. Yes, I have switched my cell phone off.
4. Yes, I will publish your book.
Four reasons for ending a friendship:
1. Betrayal.
2. Racism.
3. Lying.
4. Using (all the time) and never giving.
Four smells that make you feel good about the world:
1. Fresh-mown hay.
2. Barbecue.
3. Chanel perfume.
4. Baby after a bath.
Four favorite activities you did as a kid:
1. Running away.
2. Quizzes at school (our teacher paid us for right answers!)
3. Fishing.
4. Reading.
Four jobs I've had or currently have in my life:
1. Writer
2. Librarian
3. Barmaid
4. Hospital cleaner
Four countries I've been to:
1. Hong Kong
2. USA
3. South Africa
4. Rhodesia (when it was still called that)
Four places I'd rather be right now:
1. Tucson
2. Whangarei (NZ)
3. Hamilton Island
4. Yosemite
Four foods I like to eat:
1. Curry
2. Barramundi (fish)
3. Trifle
4. Grilled cheese on toast
Four books you've read or are currently reading:
1. Chapter by Chapter - Heather Sellars
2. Friend of the Devil - Peter Robinson
3. Athletic Shorts - Chris Crutcher
4. A Good Day to Die - Simon Kernick
Four words or phrases you would like to see used more often:
1. I'm having a good day.
2. Thank you.
3. Yes, I have switched my cell phone off.
4. Yes, I will publish your book.
Four reasons for ending a friendship:
1. Betrayal.
2. Racism.
3. Lying.
4. Using (all the time) and never giving.
Four smells that make you feel good about the world:
1. Fresh-mown hay.
2. Barbecue.
3. Chanel perfume.
4. Baby after a bath.
Four favorite activities you did as a kid:
1. Running away.
2. Quizzes at school (our teacher paid us for right answers!)
3. Fishing.
4. Reading.
MWF - Questions
Over the past few years, festival-goers have come to dread question time after the speakers have finished their part. Often questions are actually statements, designed to show the cleverness of the questioner, that go on and on for about five minutes until someone on the stage manages to bring him/her to a halt. Sometimes questions are actually about "no one will publish my manuscript and I think it's a conspiracy and what are you going to do about it". At a writers' festival which is all about published books? Nothing.
Maybe this is why, for the second year, MWF is running a full-day session on the nuts and bolts of getting published. This is something our students never attend because they learn all that in our course (if they're listening properly!).
It's easy to forget that there are still lots of people out there who write and hope to get published, but don't have much idea at all of how the industry works. Hence the question at a forum I attended - "I have an idea and some pictures I want to draw - how do I get published?" There was an audible intake of breath in the audience, and the authors on stage seemed so taken aback that they floundered and didn't really answer properly - how could you, when the full answer would take hours?
I've noticed in a couple of sessions at the MWF so far that the "boss" of the stage (facilitator, or whatever the current word is) has warned at the start of question time - please ask real questions. But many in the audience would rather contribute to the discussion in some way. The person in the Short Fiction session the other day who told us all about the story readings at the Wattle Cafe was doing us a favour. Where do you draw the line?
Maybe the line is between providing useful input, and self-aggrandising?
Maybe this is why, for the second year, MWF is running a full-day session on the nuts and bolts of getting published. This is something our students never attend because they learn all that in our course (if they're listening properly!).
It's easy to forget that there are still lots of people out there who write and hope to get published, but don't have much idea at all of how the industry works. Hence the question at a forum I attended - "I have an idea and some pictures I want to draw - how do I get published?" There was an audible intake of breath in the audience, and the authors on stage seemed so taken aback that they floundered and didn't really answer properly - how could you, when the full answer would take hours?
I've noticed in a couple of sessions at the MWF so far that the "boss" of the stage (facilitator, or whatever the current word is) has warned at the start of question time - please ask real questions. But many in the audience would rather contribute to the discussion in some way. The person in the Short Fiction session the other day who told us all about the story readings at the Wattle Cafe was doing us a favour. Where do you draw the line?
Maybe the line is between providing useful input, and self-aggrandising?
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
MWF - The Art of Editing
This was a packed session and should have been in a bigger theatre (and some air conditioning would have been nice too - never seen so many people in one place fanning themselves with all available pieces of paper).
First up was Sarah Brenan, who is an editor with Allen & Unwin. She talked about working on two different books - a nf book about schizophrenia (that in its original, submitted form was all pictures) that ended up being a book for adults, and a picture book. It was interesting to see all the changes that were made, especially to the nf book. The text for the pb was written by Margaret Wild who, as she said, is very experienced and willing to keep looking for the right or best words.
In her list of editor's qualities, she included: being first reader/audience and being able to diagnose what's not working, being able to imagine who the audience is, gardening (pruning), having Xray vision to see what's underneath, a policewoman of grammar and syntax, and a negotiator. She also said a good editor "tries to respond in such a way that the author is thrilled by the possibilities of their work."
Bryony Cosgrove has been a fiction editor for 30 years, and added more to Sarah's list. A good editor should read widely and know the market, and should also read an author's backlist before they work on the current manuscript. An editor should be invisible in the final book, should be able to work with the author's voice (she talked about the voice being what makes a work unique, and that you can bend the grammar/punctuation rules if it's necessary for the voice). She also talked about particular aspects - why isn't a character convincing, is the dialogue speeding up or slowing down the narrative, is the time and place/setting convincing, is it shown from the character's POV, has the research been done properly?
Janet McKenzie has written The Editor's Companion and worked for more than 30 years as a freelancer. She talked mostly about editing nonfiction, and pointed out that half of the books published each year are text books, so if you're freelancing there's a good chance that you end up working on one. She also talked about how many nonfiction writers are passionate and knowledgeable about their subjects, but often they are not good writers. Sometimes she ends up being a ghost writer. Another big issue in nf is illustrations, which included diagrams, maps, photos and captions.
She gave a lot of information on what it's like to be a freelancer (a no-collar worker), working from home, and how you need to set limits for both family and clients. These days, with all the overheads and need to maintain equipment etc, an experienced editor needs to charge a minimum of $60 an hour. It's also a danger when you underestimate how long a job might take, and end up working for a pittance. Publishers pay a pittance, and more editors are moving into the corporate world for better money.
She also mentioned a new national professional body for editors - the Institute of Professional Editors - which will mean all the state Societies of Editors will federate. IPED plans to offer professional accreditation and training, and will be working to enhance the work editors do. While there are a few courses where people can get basic editorial training (my course is one), the Grad Diploma at RMIT is only for people already working in the industry, so it's become a chicken-and-egg situation.
This was a session full of great information and advice - I wish it could have been videoed for all of our students.
First up was Sarah Brenan, who is an editor with Allen & Unwin. She talked about working on two different books - a nf book about schizophrenia (that in its original, submitted form was all pictures) that ended up being a book for adults, and a picture book. It was interesting to see all the changes that were made, especially to the nf book. The text for the pb was written by Margaret Wild who, as she said, is very experienced and willing to keep looking for the right or best words.
In her list of editor's qualities, she included: being first reader/audience and being able to diagnose what's not working, being able to imagine who the audience is, gardening (pruning), having Xray vision to see what's underneath, a policewoman of grammar and syntax, and a negotiator. She also said a good editor "tries to respond in such a way that the author is thrilled by the possibilities of their work."
Bryony Cosgrove has been a fiction editor for 30 years, and added more to Sarah's list. A good editor should read widely and know the market, and should also read an author's backlist before they work on the current manuscript. An editor should be invisible in the final book, should be able to work with the author's voice (she talked about the voice being what makes a work unique, and that you can bend the grammar/punctuation rules if it's necessary for the voice). She also talked about particular aspects - why isn't a character convincing, is the dialogue speeding up or slowing down the narrative, is the time and place/setting convincing, is it shown from the character's POV, has the research been done properly?
Janet McKenzie has written The Editor's Companion and worked for more than 30 years as a freelancer. She talked mostly about editing nonfiction, and pointed out that half of the books published each year are text books, so if you're freelancing there's a good chance that you end up working on one. She also talked about how many nonfiction writers are passionate and knowledgeable about their subjects, but often they are not good writers. Sometimes she ends up being a ghost writer. Another big issue in nf is illustrations, which included diagrams, maps, photos and captions.
She gave a lot of information on what it's like to be a freelancer (a no-collar worker), working from home, and how you need to set limits for both family and clients. These days, with all the overheads and need to maintain equipment etc, an experienced editor needs to charge a minimum of $60 an hour. It's also a danger when you underestimate how long a job might take, and end up working for a pittance. Publishers pay a pittance, and more editors are moving into the corporate world for better money.
She also mentioned a new national professional body for editors - the Institute of Professional Editors - which will mean all the state Societies of Editors will federate. IPED plans to offer professional accreditation and training, and will be working to enhance the work editors do. While there are a few courses where people can get basic editorial training (my course is one), the Grad Diploma at RMIT is only for people already working in the industry, so it's become a chicken-and-egg situation.
This was a session full of great information and advice - I wish it could have been videoed for all of our students.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Melbourne Writers' Festival - Day One
Yesterday, I attended five sessions. Might seem like a lot, but when there are two things at opposite ends of the day you want to see, you tend then to fill in the rest of the time with other bookings. This year, the festival organisers have changed the session times, overlapping them in the various theatres so that there is no longer the sardine can crush that can drive people to distraction. Also they have moved the bookshop out to an outside marquee - having a hundred people in a bookshop on the mezzanine at a time led to elbow jabs, foot stamping and bad tempers. Nothing like a festival goer who can't get a decent look at the books.
They've said that many of the sessions are booked out, but maybe everyone saved their ticket buying for the second weekend. It seemed to me that most things were well-attended but not overflowing.
Session 1 - Jeffrey Deaver
JD was entertaining and had plenty of good advice for aspiring writers, such as "Look at rejection as a speed hump, not a brick wall". Considering his first two novels were so bad he shredded them to destroy all evidence of their existence, the third was rejected by everyone in existence and then the fourth finally made it, he's had some experience of this. He likes to visualise his books, play them in his head like a movie, and says you should get right into the heads of all of your characters, good and bad, so you know how they're thinking and how they will behave.
For each book, he spends eight months outlining (150 page outline!), two months writing and two months rewriting. Rewriting might mean 30 or more drafts. To help the outline process, he uses Post-it notes and cards pinned to the wall, and it allows him to write scenes out of order if he wants to. His favourite philosopher is Clint Eastwood, especially Dirty Harry who said "A wise man knows his limitations." (My favourite CE quote is: I tried being reasonable - I didn't like it.) He also quoted Mickey Spillane, who said "People don't read books to get to the middle, they read to get to the end."
Deaver doesn't put a lot of specific gore in his stories. He believes his job is to entertain, not to repulse readers, and he doesn't write for himself, he writes for the fans. Hence the new book with a new main character, Kathryn Dance - reader response to her appearance in another novel was so great that she now has a series of her own.
Session 2 - Vendela Vida
I had not heard of this writer before, but the program guide said she was going to talk about how a writer edits their own novels (as in, when you get up the next morning and everything you wrote the day before is horrible). This blurb attracted a good audience, but the interviewer didn't seem to realise that was what people were waiting to hear, so there were plenty of questions about that aspect afterwards.
Vida is a co-editor of The Believer magazine, and also a fiction writer. Her first novel was And Now You Can Go, about a girl who is nearly shot by a man in a park one afternoon. This originally started out as 450 pages, but when she re-read it after finishing it, only the first 10 pages were any good, so she threw out the rest and started again. She writes literary fiction, but believes that plot involves consequences; if there are no consequences to characters' actions, there is no story.
She also talked about how, after making such a mess of her first novel, she then joined a writers' group as she realised she needed good feedback to make sure she didn't mess up again. Other points of interest - she wrote a lot more before she had a baby (big surprise!), but since then her and her husband have thrown out their TV, and two months ago they gave up the internet. Both things were consuming reading and writing time, and now they're gone.
She talked about writing 1000 words every day (which means getting up at 4.30am), and it was interesting how many people in the audience were amazed/stunned by this. In question time, three different people came back to the 1000 words thing, but the stark truth is - if you want to write novels, that's what you do. A page or two now and then when you feel like it is not going to get you a novel, not anytime soon at least. (Deaver said if you want to write for a living, you have to produce books regularly, at least one a year.)
Session 3 - Clive James talking about his poetry
This was a wide-ranging session about poetry writing (a poem consists of phrases joined together), influences (AD Hope, Larkin, Yeats), comic poetry (which he says has ruined his chances of being accepted as a serious poet), reviews and criticism (if you live long enough, you'll bury your critics) and melancholy (he suffers from it but stays busy). He also said "If you're not depressed, you don't know what's going on."
There was a lot of reciting of poems he knew by heart, plus more readings from his collected works. However, he did not read "The Book of My Enemy Has Been Remaindered", which he says was his breakthrough poem.
Session 4 - J.S. Harry
Harry is a well-known Australian poet, and I like her poetry. Her new book is a series of poems about a rabbit who travels around the world. The poems are accessible and interesting - I haven't read the book yet, although I did buy it.
However, I was sitting to one side in the seating, and Harry faced the other side with her head down for much of the first half of the session, so that all I could see was hair. A bit weird, as if her voice was coming out of somewhere else. She read a lot of poems, and the interviewer didn't seem to have many useful questions to ask. Maybe I was tiring by then, but it was a disappointing session as there was no discussion of poetry much at all, and the question time went off into a whole lot of stuff about Iraq (there is a session on poetry and Iraq on Sunday).
Session 5 - The Death of the Short Story
Everyone must be sick to death of this topic by now! They wheel it out every year, and Cate Kennedy, one of the panellists, said she'd now been asked to speak about it at three different festivals this year. So it was no surprise that no one had anything new to say about it. The first speaker, Rjurik Davidson, seemed unprepared and rambled on about nothing much, and had little to contribute. A pity, as his background is speculative fiction and he could have talked about short fiction in that area and given everyone a good insight into what was happening. Instead he mentioned it briefly and then waffled a bit more. (I get annoyed with panellists who are paid to be there but don't do the work.)
Nam Le's writing of short stories is US-focused, so he talked about the differences between there and here: the MFA programs in the US are geared to short stories through the workshop process and connected journals; they have a strong base of high quality journals as markets (the New Yorker gets a 1000 stories a week); there is a sense in the US that short fiction is a good training ground for new writers and is worth supporting.
Cate Kennedy was great, as always. She played with the metaphor of the short story as "endangered", so we had: space for short fiction these days is "poached" by real life stories; the combination of shrinking markets (in Australia) and more people writing and making publishing more competitive means a "loss of habitat"; we also suffer from "predation by other species" such as TV, internet, etc. She was succinct and funny, but also optimistic that the short story will continue. As always, the big question is how to get people to read more of them.
One person in the audience mentioned a series of readings of short fiction by well-known actors at the Wattle Cafe near Eltham - he said they have been incredibly popular and the actors are going to be taking the show on the road.
They've said that many of the sessions are booked out, but maybe everyone saved their ticket buying for the second weekend. It seemed to me that most things were well-attended but not overflowing.
Session 1 - Jeffrey Deaver
JD was entertaining and had plenty of good advice for aspiring writers, such as "Look at rejection as a speed hump, not a brick wall". Considering his first two novels were so bad he shredded them to destroy all evidence of their existence, the third was rejected by everyone in existence and then the fourth finally made it, he's had some experience of this. He likes to visualise his books, play them in his head like a movie, and says you should get right into the heads of all of your characters, good and bad, so you know how they're thinking and how they will behave.
For each book, he spends eight months outlining (150 page outline!), two months writing and two months rewriting. Rewriting might mean 30 or more drafts. To help the outline process, he uses Post-it notes and cards pinned to the wall, and it allows him to write scenes out of order if he wants to. His favourite philosopher is Clint Eastwood, especially Dirty Harry who said "A wise man knows his limitations." (My favourite CE quote is: I tried being reasonable - I didn't like it.) He also quoted Mickey Spillane, who said "People don't read books to get to the middle, they read to get to the end."
Deaver doesn't put a lot of specific gore in his stories. He believes his job is to entertain, not to repulse readers, and he doesn't write for himself, he writes for the fans. Hence the new book with a new main character, Kathryn Dance - reader response to her appearance in another novel was so great that she now has a series of her own.
Session 2 - Vendela Vida
I had not heard of this writer before, but the program guide said she was going to talk about how a writer edits their own novels (as in, when you get up the next morning and everything you wrote the day before is horrible). This blurb attracted a good audience, but the interviewer didn't seem to realise that was what people were waiting to hear, so there were plenty of questions about that aspect afterwards.
Vida is a co-editor of The Believer magazine, and also a fiction writer. Her first novel was And Now You Can Go, about a girl who is nearly shot by a man in a park one afternoon. This originally started out as 450 pages, but when she re-read it after finishing it, only the first 10 pages were any good, so she threw out the rest and started again. She writes literary fiction, but believes that plot involves consequences; if there are no consequences to characters' actions, there is no story.
She also talked about how, after making such a mess of her first novel, she then joined a writers' group as she realised she needed good feedback to make sure she didn't mess up again. Other points of interest - she wrote a lot more before she had a baby (big surprise!), but since then her and her husband have thrown out their TV, and two months ago they gave up the internet. Both things were consuming reading and writing time, and now they're gone.
She talked about writing 1000 words every day (which means getting up at 4.30am), and it was interesting how many people in the audience were amazed/stunned by this. In question time, three different people came back to the 1000 words thing, but the stark truth is - if you want to write novels, that's what you do. A page or two now and then when you feel like it is not going to get you a novel, not anytime soon at least. (Deaver said if you want to write for a living, you have to produce books regularly, at least one a year.)
Session 3 - Clive James talking about his poetry
This was a wide-ranging session about poetry writing (a poem consists of phrases joined together), influences (AD Hope, Larkin, Yeats), comic poetry (which he says has ruined his chances of being accepted as a serious poet), reviews and criticism (if you live long enough, you'll bury your critics) and melancholy (he suffers from it but stays busy). He also said "If you're not depressed, you don't know what's going on."
There was a lot of reciting of poems he knew by heart, plus more readings from his collected works. However, he did not read "The Book of My Enemy Has Been Remaindered", which he says was his breakthrough poem.
Session 4 - J.S. Harry
Harry is a well-known Australian poet, and I like her poetry. Her new book is a series of poems about a rabbit who travels around the world. The poems are accessible and interesting - I haven't read the book yet, although I did buy it.
However, I was sitting to one side in the seating, and Harry faced the other side with her head down for much of the first half of the session, so that all I could see was hair. A bit weird, as if her voice was coming out of somewhere else. She read a lot of poems, and the interviewer didn't seem to have many useful questions to ask. Maybe I was tiring by then, but it was a disappointing session as there was no discussion of poetry much at all, and the question time went off into a whole lot of stuff about Iraq (there is a session on poetry and Iraq on Sunday).
Session 5 - The Death of the Short Story
Everyone must be sick to death of this topic by now! They wheel it out every year, and Cate Kennedy, one of the panellists, said she'd now been asked to speak about it at three different festivals this year. So it was no surprise that no one had anything new to say about it. The first speaker, Rjurik Davidson, seemed unprepared and rambled on about nothing much, and had little to contribute. A pity, as his background is speculative fiction and he could have talked about short fiction in that area and given everyone a good insight into what was happening. Instead he mentioned it briefly and then waffled a bit more. (I get annoyed with panellists who are paid to be there but don't do the work.)
Nam Le's writing of short stories is US-focused, so he talked about the differences between there and here: the MFA programs in the US are geared to short stories through the workshop process and connected journals; they have a strong base of high quality journals as markets (the New Yorker gets a 1000 stories a week); there is a sense in the US that short fiction is a good training ground for new writers and is worth supporting.
Cate Kennedy was great, as always. She played with the metaphor of the short story as "endangered", so we had: space for short fiction these days is "poached" by real life stories; the combination of shrinking markets (in Australia) and more people writing and making publishing more competitive means a "loss of habitat"; we also suffer from "predation by other species" such as TV, internet, etc. She was succinct and funny, but also optimistic that the short story will continue. As always, the big question is how to get people to read more of them.
One person in the audience mentioned a series of readings of short fiction by well-known actors at the Wattle Cafe near Eltham - he said they have been incredibly popular and the actors are going to be taking the show on the road.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Canberra and home
After three terrific days in Canberra, I am home again. I did nine school visits in three days, and in every school the kids were just great. They listened, they barely fidgeted (pretty amazing on a Friday afternoon) and they asked fantastic questions like "Do you like writing in first or third person?" and "What would you want to be if you weren't a writer?" and "What would your publisher say if you stopped sending them stories?" The kids above are from Florey Primary School, my midday Friday visit. I should have taken more photos but I kept forgetting!
One question that came up several times was "Who is your favourite writer?". Now this is a question that I can't answer, because I have dozens, but it did remind me that I've promised several times to put a list of my favourites on my website. That's a job for this week.
While I was away, I read Sarah Dessen's Just Listen - I think she is one of the best YA writers around. She has the uncanny ability to get immense depth into her characters through their thoughts and emotions without being narcissistic or cynical, or even sentimental. Her novels are about relationships, both in families and among teens, and she depicts them so effectively that you can't help but care about the characters and want to know what happens.
I also read another Lisa Gardner crime novel The Third Victim, which deals with school shootings and puts a whole new angle on it. Again, her characters are very real and involving. She is also good at cliffhangers and chapter endings.
Today, I was hardly home (didn't even get the dirty clothes in the washing machine) when I discovered that my first session ticket for the Melbourne Writers' Festival was for 10am, not 12 noon as I'd thought. I raced off to make it in time for a session with Jeffrey Deaver, crime writer, and it was worth it. Notes from all of today's sessions will be coming soon.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Canberra Post
This is my third day in Canberra - second day of school visits. My voice is going OK, but at times I start to feel a bit croaky and have to try to talk with less volume! I hadn't realised how much I had got into the habit of shouting (or projecting, if you want to be nice about it). Most places I have been have had smallish rooms, or groups of kids sitting fairly close to me. In my normal classes, everyone sits miles away from me so I'm shouting across a wide space.
Last night I went to a panel session at the National Library - Bob Graham, Judy Horaceck and Gary Crew talking about "Inspiration and Intuition" - although, as Judy said, often ingenuity has to come into it as well. Once you get an idea, you then have to be quite ingenious as to what you do with it.
Gary mentioned he is currently writing his first adult novel (this is after more than twenty years of writing children's and YA novels) and he is finding it more difficult that he thought, especially in terms of character's voices. He also said that people often go to seminars or talks by writers, wanting to be writers themselves, and expecting that they will be "sprinkled with pixie dust" that will magically enable them to write a successful kid's book.
Oh, if only ... maybe I need to start looking for a pixie dust shop. Or at least a new voice shop.
Last night I went to a panel session at the National Library - Bob Graham, Judy Horaceck and Gary Crew talking about "Inspiration and Intuition" - although, as Judy said, often ingenuity has to come into it as well. Once you get an idea, you then have to be quite ingenious as to what you do with it.
Gary mentioned he is currently writing his first adult novel (this is after more than twenty years of writing children's and YA novels) and he is finding it more difficult that he thought, especially in terms of character's voices. He also said that people often go to seminars or talks by writers, wanting to be writers themselves, and expecting that they will be "sprinkled with pixie dust" that will magically enable them to write a successful kid's book.
Oh, if only ... maybe I need to start looking for a pixie dust shop. Or at least a new voice shop.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)