Although I'm very glad I did my Masters, and I'm looking forward to the future challenge of a Phd, nothing beats writing just for the pure joy of it.
In my current project I'm moving away from issue-based realism, letting go of the logic and just letting fly - mostly with luminous greeen vomit! (not mine, the characters...)
I'm finding the words are flowing more easily as I focus on action-based scenes. Even though some of the scenes are quite tense, and the main character is struggling with memory loss and trauma, approaching these themes from a speculative fiction approach is very different. I'm finding that it's giving my writing a freshness and immediacy with an added dose of zing (kinda like a triple shot of espresso).
The speculative fiction genre gives me more freedom to express a character's internal tensions. There's nothing like gross bodily functions to illuminate how you feel inside!
It seems that, when I get down to basics of what I really love to write, that I don't care as much for the constraints of realism as I thought. What perhaps I need to do is to use what I've learnt about the brain, about resilience, about trauma and memory and to mould and stretch that within the context of speculative fiction writing.
Who knows, I might create a whole new sub-genre hybrid in the process!
28 June 2009
23 June 2009
Sci fiction and 'issue' fiction in YA writing
In the past two weeks I've read two YA novels: Give me Truth by Australian writer, Bill Condon and The Sky Inside by a US writer, now living in Germany, Clare Dunkle.
Condon's book fits under the 'issue' genre in that it deals with the lives of two teens, David and Caitlin, whose parents are going through marriage problems and separation. It's written in multiple first-person perspective, with each of the main characters narrating in alternate chapters.
Dunkle's book is classic sci fi, set in a futuristic world of made-to-order children, lifelike robot toys, deadly game shows and an environment controlled by consumerism. It's written in the third person point-of-view.
I chose to read Condon's writing because I was interested in how he would use the multiple first-person narration, and because he's an Australian writer. Plus I'm interested in the 'issue' genre. I chose to read Dunkle's book because I read the blurb on the back and it sounded awesome.
I read Give me Truth first. I read it quickly: the story moved along well, most of the writing was very good; some of it was excellent. There were a couple of key scenes that really packed an emotional punch. The issues were true to life, the characterisations realistic and believable. But I got to the end of the story and felt, well, 'meh' probably best describes it. Although it was a good book from a writer's perspective - well edited, good use of language, etc etc; it was, well, a bit boring. I really hate to say that because I'm aware that like any writer (including me) I am 110% sure that Condon put everything he had into this book. But I'm being honest here, and the book really left me cold.
In contrast, Dunkle's book had me hooked from the first sentence. It was fast-paced, scary, thrilling with great charactersation, impressive world building and attention to detail. Although I prefer to read (& write) YA fiction that's in the first person perspective, I really got drawn into this book. It wasn't perfect - some of the plot devices (eg game shows where people die) are hardly new. And some passages of description were a little clumsy. But I loved, loved, loved this book.
Perhaps it comes down to a personal preference - I like sci fi more than realism. But that's not true. Freaky Green Eyes, by Joyce Carol Oates, was an issue book, firmly realistic, and it packed a powerful punch.
I think the problem with Condon's book was that it was too realistic - it was so lifelike that it was a bit like life itself. Parents go through divorce and it sucks, and they may even do things that scare us, but life goes on. For me, the book just didn't do or say enough to hold my interest.
For me as a writer (as yet unpublished in trade, unlike Condon) I guess the point to take from my experience of reading these two books is that, if you're going to write realism/issue fiction, it needs to have a little extra - a dramatic twist, a fresh angle, something a little out of the ordinary - if it's going to truly hold the readers' interest. Because if that something special isn't there, the book won't connect with them. And really, that's the whole point of writing.
Condon's book fits under the 'issue' genre in that it deals with the lives of two teens, David and Caitlin, whose parents are going through marriage problems and separation. It's written in multiple first-person perspective, with each of the main characters narrating in alternate chapters.
Dunkle's book is classic sci fi, set in a futuristic world of made-to-order children, lifelike robot toys, deadly game shows and an environment controlled by consumerism. It's written in the third person point-of-view.
I chose to read Condon's writing because I was interested in how he would use the multiple first-person narration, and because he's an Australian writer. Plus I'm interested in the 'issue' genre. I chose to read Dunkle's book because I read the blurb on the back and it sounded awesome.
I read Give me Truth first. I read it quickly: the story moved along well, most of the writing was very good; some of it was excellent. There were a couple of key scenes that really packed an emotional punch. The issues were true to life, the characterisations realistic and believable. But I got to the end of the story and felt, well, 'meh' probably best describes it. Although it was a good book from a writer's perspective - well edited, good use of language, etc etc; it was, well, a bit boring. I really hate to say that because I'm aware that like any writer (including me) I am 110% sure that Condon put everything he had into this book. But I'm being honest here, and the book really left me cold.
In contrast, Dunkle's book had me hooked from the first sentence. It was fast-paced, scary, thrilling with great charactersation, impressive world building and attention to detail. Although I prefer to read (& write) YA fiction that's in the first person perspective, I really got drawn into this book. It wasn't perfect - some of the plot devices (eg game shows where people die) are hardly new. And some passages of description were a little clumsy. But I loved, loved, loved this book.
Perhaps it comes down to a personal preference - I like sci fi more than realism. But that's not true. Freaky Green Eyes, by Joyce Carol Oates, was an issue book, firmly realistic, and it packed a powerful punch.
I think the problem with Condon's book was that it was too realistic - it was so lifelike that it was a bit like life itself. Parents go through divorce and it sucks, and they may even do things that scare us, but life goes on. For me, the book just didn't do or say enough to hold my interest.
For me as a writer (as yet unpublished in trade, unlike Condon) I guess the point to take from my experience of reading these two books is that, if you're going to write realism/issue fiction, it needs to have a little extra - a dramatic twist, a fresh angle, something a little out of the ordinary - if it's going to truly hold the readers' interest. Because if that something special isn't there, the book won't connect with them. And really, that's the whole point of writing.
18 June 2009
Change pace; change direction
As a result of a conversation with friends a couple of weeks ago, I've decided to change direction for a couple of months. I will get back to the 'new project' but right now I'm throwing myself into a completely different project for a short while.
Okay, not exactly completely different. I'm giving myself six weeks to rewrite an old spec-fic manuscript that I wrote back in 2003/04. I've had some excellent feedback about this manuscript in the past but there were some plot elements that just weren't working. But now I'm giving it a brand new lease of life.
I don't want to give away too much, but I'm upping the action, upping the pace and adding a bit more gore. It will still have that speculative fiction aspect, but I'm moving it more towards myth-based horror.
I think a complete change in writing direction will help me refocus both on what I want to do with Girl in the Shadows down the track, and also what I want to do with a Phd.
One things for sure. I can't give up writing even if I want to. Even if I never get a trade publisher to publish my books. Even if the only people who read what I write are family, friends and the editors who reject them. I couldn't give up writing anymore than I could give up breathing (and in both cases, I'd end up dead).
But for now it's bum down, head up and action stations. So stay tuned...
Okay, not exactly completely different. I'm giving myself six weeks to rewrite an old spec-fic manuscript that I wrote back in 2003/04. I've had some excellent feedback about this manuscript in the past but there were some plot elements that just weren't working. But now I'm giving it a brand new lease of life.
I don't want to give away too much, but I'm upping the action, upping the pace and adding a bit more gore. It will still have that speculative fiction aspect, but I'm moving it more towards myth-based horror.
I think a complete change in writing direction will help me refocus both on what I want to do with Girl in the Shadows down the track, and also what I want to do with a Phd.
One things for sure. I can't give up writing even if I want to. Even if I never get a trade publisher to publish my books. Even if the only people who read what I write are family, friends and the editors who reject them. I couldn't give up writing anymore than I could give up breathing (and in both cases, I'd end up dead).
But for now it's bum down, head up and action stations. So stay tuned...
4 June 2009
Writing in the 3rd person
Sometimes I think a lot of my issues around character/plot would be more easily solved if I felt more comfortable writing in the third person. I've written quite a few short stories from the third person perspective, and Curse of Fire, the kids' reader I had published a few years ago, was also written from the third person perspective.
Most kids and YA books are written in first person, though, and I really like the immediacy of first person writing. But I've just finished reading Justin D'ath's 'Hunters and Warriors' and I was a few chapters in before I realised he was writing in the third person. The main character's perspective was so fresh and immediate I even went back to double check D'ath hadn't started off in first person & changed mid-track!
To keep my mind off Girl in the Shadows for the moment (I won't be able to face the inevitable rewrite for some months yet) I'm jotting down ideas for a new YA manuscript. This story will have two strong main characters, both who have interesting stories to tell. So do I have a go at writing in the omnipresent third person? Or do I try a different tack and have a go at writing from multiple first-person perspectives?
I'm about to start reading Bill Condon's 'Give me truth', which uses double first person perspective. I'll be interested to compare his handling of the narrative this way with D'ath's third person, to see which draws me in most strongly. Maybe if it's a clear winner one way or the other, I'll know which way to start off my next project.
Most kids and YA books are written in first person, though, and I really like the immediacy of first person writing. But I've just finished reading Justin D'ath's 'Hunters and Warriors' and I was a few chapters in before I realised he was writing in the third person. The main character's perspective was so fresh and immediate I even went back to double check D'ath hadn't started off in first person & changed mid-track!
To keep my mind off Girl in the Shadows for the moment (I won't be able to face the inevitable rewrite for some months yet) I'm jotting down ideas for a new YA manuscript. This story will have two strong main characters, both who have interesting stories to tell. So do I have a go at writing in the omnipresent third person? Or do I try a different tack and have a go at writing from multiple first-person perspectives?
I'm about to start reading Bill Condon's 'Give me truth', which uses double first person perspective. I'll be interested to compare his handling of the narrative this way with D'ath's third person, to see which draws me in most strongly. Maybe if it's a clear winner one way or the other, I'll know which way to start off my next project.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)