Words are slippery things. Trying to find the right one seems impossible at times and it can seem like everything has been written before. That's when your brain seizes up and nothing flows and the only thing coming off at the end of your fingers are pedestrian sentences that plod along into nowhere.
Words sometimes behave like stubborn toddlers, like when you're dragged as a kid into some interminably boring place and you literally dig your heels in. I do have a method of dealing with these type of toddler words. It's by no means a foolproof method and it probably just shows up the fact that I'm no literary genius but it is a method nonetheless. I rewrite the same phrase, adding in new words, replacing them, twisting them, trying (but usually failing) to trick my brain into surprising me.
Here's a random example:
Mona jumped off as if frogs were biting her arse and motioned to a blue-uniformed attendant, who hurried over to Ava and helped her off the wheeler as if she was a fragile snowflake or a piece of glass on the verge of shattering, perhaps even a glass snowflake.
And another:
Better, better, best, bitter, butter, bust. The ideas flooding into her head now were scaring her shitless because they were coming in like little shooting rockets, pinging into her neurons, spiking her neural pathways with nettled hooks, digging their way in with barbs that could not be pulled out without causing irreversible damage.
Yes, when I sit down to write, this is some of the stuff that travels from my brain down into the ends of my fingertips, onto the keyboard and onto the screen. Does it make any sense? Not really. Will I ever use any of it in a story? Maybe. I do like the bit about Mona jumping as if frogs were biting her arse.
Maybe one day, in a few years' time, I'll look back on this stuff and be able to pinpoint the birth of a perfect sentence. Perhaps in the juxtaposition of pinging with nettle hooks, or with snow, glass and shatter. But more likely I'll stick with the image of the arse biting frogs because I think that's my true voice as a writer.
So the next time I'm asked to define my writing I'll have this response: my writing is defined by the type stories in which people jump as if they've been bitten on the arse by frogs.
Maybe that's what's really missing from Girl in the Shadows...
23 August 2009
25 July 2009
Outcomes are so yesterday
The other day I was talking to my daughter about my latest writing project and how I hoped to have it ready to submit soon. In her ultra honest & intuitive way she said, 'Well, don't rush it like you usually do.' The words pinged around in my head firing off all sorts of neuroses. Me? Rush things?? Do I really?
Well, yes. Too often I get caught up in the goal and the outcome instead of the process. No matter how many times I try to remind myself that it's all about the process a part of my brain barges in and says "yes but what's the outcome? what are you achieving??".
But no more! The next time I go on about achieving outcomes and setting goals I'm going to slap myself (& if you're anywhere close by feel free to join in). My next writing project is going to take 10 years. Maybe even 15 years. Quite possibly, I'll never even finish it. And whether I do or not doesn't even matter because it's all about the process.
Sure I'd love to be a successful author, with book sales in the hundreds of thousands and adoring fans poring over my every word. But let's be honest - that's probably never going to happen. And even if it did, would it make me a better writer? No, it wouldn't. Possibly, it would make me a worse writer because then I'd be even more obsessed about achievements and outcomes and book sales and my position on the writers' festival pecking order etc etc etc. I'm not saying every successful author does these things. But I probably would.
So I hereby renounce achievements and outcomes. I'll write every day that I can for as much time as I can. I'll write good sentences and bad sentences and ones in between; make fabulous word choices and ordinary word choices; write brilliant paragraphs and ones that make the reader shrug and say 'meh'. But none of those things will matter because I will be writing.
And in the end, that is all that matters.
Well, yes. Too often I get caught up in the goal and the outcome instead of the process. No matter how many times I try to remind myself that it's all about the process a part of my brain barges in and says "yes but what's the outcome? what are you achieving??".
But no more! The next time I go on about achieving outcomes and setting goals I'm going to slap myself (& if you're anywhere close by feel free to join in). My next writing project is going to take 10 years. Maybe even 15 years. Quite possibly, I'll never even finish it. And whether I do or not doesn't even matter because it's all about the process.
Sure I'd love to be a successful author, with book sales in the hundreds of thousands and adoring fans poring over my every word. But let's be honest - that's probably never going to happen. And even if it did, would it make me a better writer? No, it wouldn't. Possibly, it would make me a worse writer because then I'd be even more obsessed about achievements and outcomes and book sales and my position on the writers' festival pecking order etc etc etc. I'm not saying every successful author does these things. But I probably would.
So I hereby renounce achievements and outcomes. I'll write every day that I can for as much time as I can. I'll write good sentences and bad sentences and ones in between; make fabulous word choices and ordinary word choices; write brilliant paragraphs and ones that make the reader shrug and say 'meh'. But none of those things will matter because I will be writing.
And in the end, that is all that matters.
16 July 2009
Montgomery Burns outshone by the Productivity Commission
We all love to hate Montgomery Burns (okay, all except for Waylon Smithers). Mr Burns is the arch-capitalist. The epitome of greed is good. The man who stole the sun from Springfield to force them into 24-hour use of his nuclear energy.
Well, he aint got nothin' on Australia's Productivity Commission! After completely screwing with the Australian music industry a few years ago (anyone noticed CD prices go down - no? What a surprise!) they now want to destroy Australia's publishing industry.
Montogomery Burns would be proud!
The commission took in hundreds of submissions from authors, editors, independent book shop owners, readers, writing groups such as the Australian Society of Authors, publishers and printers nearly all of whom said that the lifting of parallel import restrictions on books would decimate the Australian publishing industry.
Yet according to commission's deputy chairman, Mike Woods Australian consumers are in effect 'subsidising foreign book producers'. What the???
The commission's main argument is that Australians pay too much for books & that lifting parallel import restrictions will make books cheaper. They are supported in this view by the 'Coalition for Cheaper Books' (also known as Dymocks, KMart, Target & Big W).
Apart from the fact that there is no evidence that books will be any cheaper with the lifting of restrictions (& we can look to our neighbours NZ for proof of this) do you really think we can trust Big W & Target to deliver cheaper books? Just look at how the supermarkets are managing to monopolise groceries & petrol prices.
Hopefully it's not too late. Take action now & send KRudd an email.
Well, he aint got nothin' on Australia's Productivity Commission! After completely screwing with the Australian music industry a few years ago (anyone noticed CD prices go down - no? What a surprise!) they now want to destroy Australia's publishing industry.
Montogomery Burns would be proud!
The commission took in hundreds of submissions from authors, editors, independent book shop owners, readers, writing groups such as the Australian Society of Authors, publishers and printers nearly all of whom said that the lifting of parallel import restrictions on books would decimate the Australian publishing industry.
Yet according to commission's deputy chairman, Mike Woods Australian consumers are in effect 'subsidising foreign book producers'. What the???
The commission's main argument is that Australians pay too much for books & that lifting parallel import restrictions will make books cheaper. They are supported in this view by the 'Coalition for Cheaper Books' (also known as Dymocks, KMart, Target & Big W).
Apart from the fact that there is no evidence that books will be any cheaper with the lifting of restrictions (& we can look to our neighbours NZ for proof of this) do you really think we can trust Big W & Target to deliver cheaper books? Just look at how the supermarkets are managing to monopolise groceries & petrol prices.
Hopefully it's not too late. Take action now & send KRudd an email.
11 July 2009
Goldfish dreams
This morning I dreamt I was walking with some people, carrying a large cocktail type glass filled with water that had a bright orange goldfish swimming in it. The fish was too big for the glass and kept bumping its face up against the side, its mouth gaping. I commented that the fish needed a bigger bowl, then suddenly the fish jumped right out of the glass and onto my shoulder.
I've had weirder dreams, but this one really sticks in my mind, particularly that wide mouthed goldfish. The unconscious is fond of putting puns into dream language, so the obvious ones that spring to mind are 'big fish in a small pond' and 'fish out of water'. But I think perhaps there's more to it than that.
Like many people, I struggle with my dream of earning my living as a fiction writer and my reality of working in a 9-5 job (albeit one that involves writing) to pay the bills. The dream could be about wanting to escape the confines of regular job - though a cocktail glass doesn't exactly scream '9-to-5'.
Perhaps the dream is more about broadening my horizons. I tend to see the trade publishing contract as the ultimate goal - the 'holy grail' that I'm aiming for. But maybe that goal is confining me. What if I broke out of that mould and took a rounder view of what I really want to get out of writing? What if I let that goal go completely?
It's always going to be a struggle to fit in the writing I want to do - fiction writing for kids and young adults - with the writing I'm paid to do. But perhaps I need to appreciate the fact that at least I do get to write for a living and that I do get the opportunity to help other people's stories to be told. And to really see the value in that.
I don't know that I can really let my 'ultimate' goal go. But I'm willing to let it free-float around for a while.
I've had weirder dreams, but this one really sticks in my mind, particularly that wide mouthed goldfish. The unconscious is fond of putting puns into dream language, so the obvious ones that spring to mind are 'big fish in a small pond' and 'fish out of water'. But I think perhaps there's more to it than that.
Like many people, I struggle with my dream of earning my living as a fiction writer and my reality of working in a 9-5 job (albeit one that involves writing) to pay the bills. The dream could be about wanting to escape the confines of regular job - though a cocktail glass doesn't exactly scream '9-to-5'.
Perhaps the dream is more about broadening my horizons. I tend to see the trade publishing contract as the ultimate goal - the 'holy grail' that I'm aiming for. But maybe that goal is confining me. What if I broke out of that mould and took a rounder view of what I really want to get out of writing? What if I let that goal go completely?
It's always going to be a struggle to fit in the writing I want to do - fiction writing for kids and young adults - with the writing I'm paid to do. But perhaps I need to appreciate the fact that at least I do get to write for a living and that I do get the opportunity to help other people's stories to be told. And to really see the value in that.
I don't know that I can really let my 'ultimate' goal go. But I'm willing to let it free-float around for a while.
28 June 2009
Writing for joy
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!
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!
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)