Columns for January,
2004
(more
archives here)
| DIGGIN' THE NEW
January 12, 2004 Welcome back to the oft-promised, finally assured weekly Teddybear Sawdust Show column. You will notice that there is a new address forthcoming, and in addition to that there will be other changes. "Mortals must do what they are here to creatively do or they will become cranky." Jill Badonsky, The Nine Modern-Day Muses (and a Bodyguard) Trapdoor Spider (that's me) now writes every day. This means that things like this column and Baker's 12 are written in advance, so that all that needs doing on publication day is uploading. If neither is here on Sunday, that's a computer thing somewhere (see revised date above, heh). The writing is done. In addition to proper scheduling, what else did I learn last year? Well, I guess the best way to cover this would be to describe my experiences from NaNoWriMo 2002 to NaNoWriMo 2003. (Very briefly, NaNoWriMo consists of a group of people who commit themselves to writing 50 thousand words in November. Yes, thirty days. Yes, thousand. Five-zero-zero-zero-zero.) For all that writers are cranky when not cranking out, the most difficult thing for them to actually do, according to my exhaustive anecdotal evidence, is actually sit down and commit themselves to writing. Conquer the internal editor, and the mental nay-sayer. So this is the first lesson you learn in NaNo, because you don't have time to worry about whether your words are perfect; you can polish later, once you have something to polish. I discovered in November 2002 the joy of writing. That is, I rediscovered the joy of writing. I had lost that feeling of excitement over the previous few years; it had become work. But now the joy is back. Also I realised that writing every day makes me happy, and excited. So on January 6, 2003, I started Baker's 12, a daily serial. Every day, the plan went, I would write exactly 640 words of this story, and put it on line. Things did not work out as planned; I fell behind because these instalments took longer to write than anticipated, and some days I just did not have the time, so at first I caught up on the weekends, then I fell behind an entire week, and then - this was the big change - I stopped thinking of B12 as a writing exercise. I starting caring about it, and the writing became even more difficult. Now B12 is published weekly, 5 instalments of 640 words each, and this is much better for it. I'm several months behind, but these will be made up eventually. Once more people start reading it, it's going to be a genuine phenomenon. (And at this time I would like to thank Scott, who is a Fan, but also truly helpful. He was hesitant to offer me criticism because he though it might upset me, but I'll say it again: I don't care if you hated every last syllable, provided your perspective was helpful. (Don't, for example, just say, "Yeah, I liked it. It was pretty good." This is useless.) Scott, bless him, told me that the story was difficult to follow, which I knew, but the problem was exacerbated by the inconsistent publication schedule. Ow! A palpable hit. As a writer, of course, I live in a vacuum, so it never concretely occurred to me that the schedule might have such an effect on appreciation, so in order to rescue B12 it has to come out weekly. I will not forget this. Thank you Scott.) Righto. Fast-forward to November 2003. Another National Novel Writing Month. (This is what NaNoWriMo stands for; perhaps I should have mentioned that earlier. Hooray for pure writing!) This time I know what to expect. (Today's special guest is none other than... Hubris! Welcome to the show.) I know what I have to do in order to accomplish my 50 000. So I decide that this year the project will not just be about getting things written, but about writing quality. Not heavily-edited, since there's still no time for that, but words somewhat thought out, paragraphs and sections a little bit sculpted. Here are the results: The first four chapters of The Brotherhood of the Silver Cross. It was mostly not fun to write. Once the archives have returned, go back and read my thoughts on serials: The excitement, the thrill of discovery, the artistic pathways that open when you haven't time to close any roads. And this year I decided to write something sculpted? Lesson learned. Is there any greater joy for a writer than to discover his characters taking the story or dialogue in exciting directions that had not been anticipated when planning the story? If it's about magic, if it's about creation, then at some point the creations must live and breathe on their own. To feel them doing this is to realise success. At this point they exist; they know more about themselves than you do, for they are alive and feel it. These were my favourite moments when writing TBotSC. The Brotherhood of the Silver Cross. My 2003 novel. The Men of the Delatour Family, 2002. The Blank of the Blank Blank. I didn't realise the similarity until November 10th or so. But it's not so surprising; they're both romances (ie, swashbucklers), so similarities are expected. I wrote TMotDF because it was the idea in my head at the time, and I thought it would be fun. Also, because of the nature of NaNo I didn't want to write a whodunnit or science fiction, nothing that requires too much planning or interlocking pieces. These lead to pauses in the writing, so I chose a simple, linear tale. But I set it in period, which meant I had to be careful with dialogue. This year, I decided to set it now, so I wouldn't have to worry about language and accuracy. But setting it now forced me to address all sorts of new questions, like police and press and - and I was still writing flowery dialogue for my adventurers! JW, my drama teacher, said to me, after I had just completed a particularly vocabulary-thin improv, "In Shakespeare you have great emotion because you have great language." This means that if I'm going to write romances, tales of honour and struggle, I'm pretty much stuck with the flowery language. So be it; I like it better anyway. But I've decided not to write romances in period; they have the power of history but can be limiting. Modern-era romances are not what they were; the police or superheroes or vigilantes are too cynical and resigned, and I want my heroes to be special. So I have no choice but to look to the future, when the pendulum has returned, and I decide how the technology and sociopolitics work. Yes, the world is subservient to the needs of MY STORY! Which is as it should be. I call this world The Belt. So what can my loyal readers expect? Obviously, more snapshots from The Belt. PG for Peril is set in The Belt, so that'll be back January 18. And since I have lots of B12 to make up, here's Week 28. (Due to temporary technical difficulty, it is recommended that you navigate this story through direct address input, changing the number to get the instalment you want, or 00 for the front page.) It will publish every weekend, and check back midway through each week; there will be the occasional supplemental instalment. You still want more? Oh, it's coming. That's a promise. See you in 6.
BLOW UP YOUR MIND
Today I'd like to discuss the Inner Critic. You remember him; he's the
reason we join projects like NaNoWriMo, the guy we have to deke out in
order to score. But he's a little bit more than that: He's the guy trying
to ruin your life. Ever had the feeling there was someone else controlling
you, making you sit on the couch and watch something on teevee you weren't
enjoying, maybe? Him. He's also the guy whose interference makes you ask,
"Why don't I just call this prospective employer; what am I afraid of?"
He's the Not You. You know what you want, you know how you can best enjoy
your life, and the Inner Critic is the guy trying to cut you off at the
knees. He's kinda tough to spot, sometimes, because he often sits there
in your brain and uses the first person singular. Some of his greatest
hits include:
See, we all know that critics are basically people who are frustrated at their own perceived failures, and want everyone else to fail too, so they don't feel so bad. We should feel sorry for them. But this does not mean we let them win. We don't even give them ground. Most self-help advice advises the querent to think positively. That is because this works. Call it magic, brainwashing, skewed perception, cognitive dissonance, projection, raising energy - you know, it just may be that there are so many things you can call this because, I say again, it works. So, positive thinking. But we all know how often we can sabotage ourselves by assuming the worst, and this is the other side of the coin, where the Inner Critic comes in. Do not deny this shadow self; you are part of the same person and if you try to repress all you'll succeed in doing is creating a more intense attack when the Inner Critic finally does break through, plus it will catch you by surprise. Enemy sighted, enemy met. Introduce yourself. Name your inner critic. Mine is named Shithead. And why not? He interrupts me to get me upset and be a jerk; plus he's got no idea what he's talking about. He deserves no better. Now that I've named him, a typical dialogue between the two of us might go like this: "Dum de-dum de daa... "
This is not only empowering, it is also fun. And it works instantly. Because the biggest part of the Shithead problem, I have discovered, is recognising just how often the sonofabitch tries to intrude upon my daily goings-on. And so this is the part where I make the implicit explicit and advise my dear readers to do the same: 1.Find an unflattering name for your Inner Critic, something that reflects his (or her) perfect lack of redeeming features as well as your contempt for him. 2. Develop a dismissive phrase, something by which you can exert your control over the IC and negate any power he may have. 3. Use this mantra with wild, joyous abandon every time you need to. Fight back. Enjoy. Just don't be surprised if you find yourself taking on crazy projects,
and succeeding.
Say, for example, you apply for a job writing for an ARG, but you've got no idea what an Alternate Reality Game may be. Say you then do some research, get excited, and realise that if you were to create an online puzzle, you could send the url to your prospective employer. What an exciting creative project! I did this; I call it Will Out. Oh, and while your brain is taking a rest from that, may I present: Baker's 12 - Week 29 and the triumphant return of PG For Peril. TS
Jan. 21. SPECIAL ADDITION: BAKER'S 12 Week 30
WORLD IN MY EYES
You may not be able to judge a book by its cover, but how else are you going to judge it? Initially, that is. You look at the cover because it is your first hint as to what might be inside. If you're looking for a story about the love lives of nurses, and the cover shows a skull dripping blood, this may not be the book you're looking for. But what if you're looking for a supernatural mystery, and instead you get a two-person character study with supernatural elements? Or you miss the central thrust of this story, and you figure out the mystery within the first half hour? You might decide that the storytelling is pretty inept, and miss a very good movie about a special relationship. And you might be one of those people who went to see The Sixth Sense because you heard it had a surprise ending, but your source for that information gave you no reasonable indication as to what the movie is really about. Today's discussion is Part One of what I call audience filter. With friends last night the topic of Mars Attacks! came up. Crowded cinema, only two people laughing, everyone else kinda frowning. Or Moulin Rouge which, as T (not me; I'm t!) would have it, has a moment near the twenty-minute mark which is designed to readjust your brain. If it fails, you will be unable to appreciate the movie. If it succeeds, then the audience will have entered the mindset required to appreciate the approach taken by the artists. "What movie were you watching?" Audience filter. Some critics have incredibly misaligned audience filters, going into movies not merely expecting the wrong thing, but demanding it, and then presenting negative reviews based on how the movie failed to do what it never set out to do in the first place. I am of the opinion, obviously, that if a piece of art is to be evaluated at all, it must be done based on the intent of the work. Hong Kong cinema taught me this: I didn't get what they were trying to do some of the time, so I had to think about it. Audience has a responsibility; if you didn't like something it just might be your own fault. Get mentioned on The Teddybear Sawdust Show! Send me your examples of pieces requiring a particular audience filter. (I offer XXX; if ever there was a movie with a specific objective... ) Trapdoor at colba dot net. (Yup, your friendly neighbourhood Trapdoor Spider has started getting spam, alas.) Interesting suggestions - and comments, yes! - will get reprinted two weeks from today in Part Two of this discussion on audience filters, which will include Venn diagrams! Oh boy, I can't wait. Special thanks to MYS for the discussion of his initial reaction to - and subsequent reevaluation of - Firefly, which sparked the idea for this column. The first time I read The Importance of Being Earnest, I just hated it. Who are all these stupid people, and why do they sound so self-important? How irritating! Then I saw it performed, and naturally it made much more sense. I have since learned two things: 1. I'm not a big fan of satire to begin with.
Oh, go on; it'll be fun. For internal factors that influence filter, in prose you're limited to addressing only one of the five senses. So you have to use tone, and point of view. If The Catcher in the Rye were told from any other perspective, I think readers would be unsympathetic; they'd just put the book down in annoyance. Movies have much more room to play with filter due to the addition of sound. Imagine the scene is a receptionist at her desk and an ordinary-looking man with a briefcase walks in. Now imagine the scene with the following musical accompaniments: - lush strings and harp
Music can help an audience understand what filter to apply. On the other hand some of my favourite composers like to play against a scene, either with irony or by accentuating an aspect that is present but not in the foreground, perhaps indicating that each character is showing a front, while the scene is really about something else. External factors influencing audience filter include recommendation and advertising. I've learned to ask my friends, "Will I like it?" and they will say, "You'll like it if you are in the mood for... " or "See it, but keep in mind that... " I love my friends; they know how to adjust my filters if they need to. Advertisers have things a little bit more difficult, because they don't know the people whose filters they're adjusting. Why have some episodes of The West Wing been advertised as though they were Jack Ryan movies? You might attract more viewers, but these newcomers will go in expecting the wrong things and you'll lose them over the first commercial break. There is a small trend I am enjoying in advertising: The say-nothing movie trailer. If your audience doesn't know what to expect, they expect anything, keeping an open mind. Works for everybody. Which brings me to today's assignment (btw, not much feedback on last week's assignment, Will Out, although one reader is heartbreakingly close to the answer.): How would you describe Baker's 12 to a prospective reader? I was asked what it's about recently, and I hesitated to say exactly because I think it would diminish some of the initial interest in the story: If you know what it's about, there's no mystery, and it was written for the reader to discover things along with one specific character. So, someone comes up to you and says: "Describe this Baker's 12 to me. What's it about; what's it like?" I'm asking because by this time next week I will have finally answered that question for Boing Boing. Baker's 12 Week 30 was published on Wednesday; and here is Week 31. And activate your romance filter for the second set of snapshots from the Belt. And in seven short days: Two milestones. The ice bridge calls me.
|
back to The Teddybear Sawdust Show!