Description Mishaps

For the story I'm pretending to write this month, I've decided to do a prologue. Not sure why, other than just to practice doing one in case I might need to later.

Well, it seems to rely on a lot of description. In the first few pages, there are no characters, just an event that sets up and creates the catalyst for the entire story. It's kind of weird, kind of familiar, but I've had to write some paragraphs over and over again because I'd get to the middle of a sentence and get stuck. Then I'd realize that I began it wrong and start a different way.

I'd visualize something and then write a completely different description. Don't know why that happens, but it did. Frustrating is a understatement here.

Antagonists

Sometimes it's difficult for me to remember to add strong opponents to my protagonist's goals. I just don't like 'villains' in the kinds of stories I'm writing right now. However, I know I need to remember that antagonists don't equal villains.

These characters are in conflict with the protagonist over the same goal; that has nothing to do with their moral alignment or personality. The antagonist can even be a hero in his or her own right.

I have to remember that.

Breakdown of Random TV Shows: Dads Part 1

So, I just viewed the Dads episode "Funny Girl."

First impressions:

• This show was taped in front of a live studio audience...However, their laughter has definitely been sweetened by a someone with a heavy finger on the laugh track button--unless I'm supposed to believe that someone trained the audience to laugh the same way for each 'eruption' with perfect timing.
• I didn't laugh once. I didn't smirk or think, Well, I see how that could be funny to someone else. I thought I was in a bad mood, but I watched something else later, and there was laughter a-plenty then. Overall, it was a weird experience because I think I'm an easy target when it comes to being provoked to laugh.
• Seth Green's face doesn't emote anything further than confused annoyance. The beard doesn't help.
• I don't remember any of the characters' names.
• I'm not sure I'm up to the challenge I've set for myself--I'm scared.

Breakdown of Random TV Show Episodes Series

I need something to blog about, so I've decided to do a series in which I  analyze an episode of a random television show. I wish to break down the episode to see why its elements work or don't work. For now, I will be focusing on half hour comedies, which means I'll be specifically looking at joke structures and comedic techniques along with the show's storytelling methods.

First up: the October 8, 2013 broadcast of Dads.

Sigh.

The "Character-Driven" Trap

I'm beginning to despise the phrase "character-driven" and all of its variations. It's something a lot of  genre writers use feel better about their writing, because the literary writers and their critics have told us that only that kind of story or work is worthwhile. It drives me bananas. These writers will use it to describe a fantasy story that they feel is a better cut than the rest. "This deserves attention and awards," they think. So they spout off that it's character driven. Then I pick it up or download it and wonder how this new experimentation in high fantasy will read. I watch as stock characters go by and mountains of text that builds up worlds but ignores the character's thoughts. An inner journey is sometimes shown, but it's all based on emotion or action, not the totality of the character. I only get a small part of the character, but the events--the happenings surrounding them--are laid out in all their full glory.

Disappointed, I put the story down. I've had my expectations directed to experience one thing and was given something else.

The sorry part is that I could have enjoyed that story if it weren't pretending to be something else. That writer said that this story is driven by the characters, and I began reading it because that's what I wanted.  I don't always look for this type of story, but when I do, I want to get what I'm looking for.

I'll just say this: "Well-developed" or round characters do not equal a story that is character-driven. They are not one and the same. I wish some authors would get this because it makes me not look forward to their next work. I think, "If this person doesn't know the craft of writing well enough to see the difference in what that person is saying the work is and what it actually is, then I can't trust the writer enough to spend hours of my day reading those stories." I mean, what else do they not fully understand? I don't want to struggle through some careless, ignorant text while they figure out what they're doing. This is a piece of my life and my income that I'm exchanging for this experience. The least the author could do is be honest.

But no, we let others shame us into lying to ourselves. Then we wonder why the readers throw shrill words back at us. This doesn't have to be. We have to stop being ashamed of the wonders we have written. If I spend a year developing a character, a world, and their stories, I'm going to be freaking proud of what I've accomplished. So what, it isn't a character study? Not everyone is looking for that. Oh, but the people who are give out those prestigious awards and the writers who create that work get all kinds of recognition. This small group says that this is an important work.

Who cares?

Not me. I've struggled through many an important work, full of basic writing atrocities. They show me this character in all of its aspects, but forget to connect it to me. They write if for themselves and the critics and leave me out of the picture. It exists for dry study, shallow because it only explores the one dimension of idea. Don't we realize that those stories are flat too?

In fact, the literary stories I have enjoyed the most had an external journey for the character to follow while pieces of the whole character were revealed to me. Those are the ones that stuck with me. Today, the critics honor those experimental pieces that move the indifferent parts of the mind, but don't touch the heart. Tomorrow, that might not be so. This is just a current trend in writing that may pass away.

But you know, that story that turns me into a character study, that inspires me to explore my mind, my heart, my soul, my past, present, my future, and that of those around me--that story will endure. So that plot that is disdained but secretly loved (admit it; you love it) is what drives your story. This happened and the character reacted. The character did that and this happened. (We do realize that the order doesn't matter, right? Plot-driven is plot driven.) Well, this is how my life goes. It passes me by and I run to catch up, to get ahead of it. I like to see that reflection in situations (plot + setting!) that aren't mine. I am a well-developed character in the midst of plot. Aren't you? Are we ashamed of ourselves?

Why I Outline

So, apparently this is important to writers; therefore, I will pretend this important to me because I'm discovering if I have what it takes to be a writer.

I didn't know writing methods mattered one way or another: I'm a simple girl--if I find that something works, I do it. I've been taught to use outlines to guide my work and I use them occasionally. Sometimes I don't. It's all about what works for me when I approach any particular idea.

Some ideas are complex and I have definite things I want to reveal and explore. These ideas need outlines to structure them so that they are coherent and so that I don't wander from my main purpose and get lost. For these particular ideas and stories, I have an endgame in mind. This is the destination (let's say NYC) and this is how I want to get there (by car!). Sometimes I plan out exactly how I want the story to end (Central Park on Mon, Statue of Liberty on Tues, off-Broadway show on Wed) and sometimes it's more general (shopping, eating, touring). The more specifically I plan what I'm doing at the destination, the more focused my story becomes (well, if I'm going to NYC, then I can take one of four routes). I then figure out what kind of story I'm telling, one that matches the ending (if I'm seeing an off-Broadway show, then I have to save up money and get tickets way in advance; if I'm shopping, I had better make sure that I have enough room in my suitcases and car for new stuff).

Now, I may write a slightly different plot than I had planned and add unexpected subplots to the story (detours!), but usually I'm still heading in the same direction (NYC). There may be times when I realize that the plot I'm working on doesn't fit the ending I've planned. Then I have to decide whether I will get back on track or follow the new plot (Hey,Chicago is now on my route!). I also have to decide whether what I've already written is a part of the old story if I've decided to go back to the original plot (or was I just lost?).

To tell the truth, I almost never end up where I thought I was going. But the outlines guide me and free me to concentrate on the journey. If I have an ending in mind, even if it will change, I can make my journey specific and memorable. I find that if I plan for surprises and discoveries, I find them more often.

In any case, my outlines allow for changes, and I always keep in mind that this outline is a guide not a rule. I'm not even specific with them. I'll put down "She learns a big secret" vs "She learns that her mother is really her aunt." I give myself as much leeway as I can so that I'm not burdened with trying to make a story go in a way that may not be working any more (did I mention I do what works?). I can let the characters and story build in organic ways without being confined to writing it happen in one particular way.

On the other hand, I may have a more straightforward story in mind. With these I can start with a premise and just write. However, at some point in the story I have to go back and outline to help me analyse the patterns and structures I have made. Then I decide whether I'm headed somewhere worthwhile and adjust as necessary. Making the story up as I go can feel spontaneous and thrilling, but there's a bigger chance that I will become frustrated when I suspect that I may be going nowhere at all. I like spending my time writing stories not searching for them.

Actually, I look at pantsing as just creating a different type of outline. One that is more detailed, to be sure, but just an outline that gets down specific dialogue and narration and character actions. I have to be willing to change and explore through pantsing just as much as I would through a less detailed outline.

So I guess it comes down to whether or not vivid scenes (and whether the scenes make up the bulk of the story or only a small part) come to mind when I'm working on a story. If they do, sometimes it's best to throw it all down in the heat of the moment and then go back over it and give it structure and connect the dots through a general outline.

Some writers feel that outlines suck the fun and creativity out of writing. I find they help me find it. With outlines, I can concentrate on revealing memorable characters and creating an interesting plot. It's all a matter of perspective.

Romance Cliches I Can't Stomach

For true happily ever afters a pure romance novel must follow these rules...

• Rule 1: The heroine must never be more successful than the hero. If she begins the story being more successful, either she will lose her success or the hero will all of sudden strike it bigger (because of his savvy and hard work paying off, of course)
• Corollary 1A: If the hero left the heroine poor, he will return rich.
• Corollary 1B: If the heroine and hero are in the same position, career-wise, then the hero will be a natural talent and the heroine will struggle with her successes, if any.
• Rule 2: The heroine must have enjoyed sex with the hero the most. Most of the time the hero is her first, but now that sexual mores are relaxing, a more experienced heroine still can't truly enjoy sex with anyone but the hero. Because true love=best sex of your life. Oddly enough, she can also have enjoyed sex with her dead husband (not just ex-husband, unless he is also the hero), but that sex will be described as 'warm'--not hot.
• Rule 3: If the heroine hurts a man and is not punished/doesn't say 'sorry,' then the man is not her true love. (The story is letting us know that he isn't the one, and showing us that we will soon see the man being terrible to the heroine.)
• Rule 4: The hero can be as rough as he wants when it comes to lovemaking-- if he can't convince her that it's good, then he isn't 'the one' (and only then is he a rapist). See Rule 2.
• Rule 5: If the heroine is doing her own thing that is incompatible with the hero's...life, then she must give up the life she built because he sure won't give up his.
• Rule 6: If the couple doesn't have big, dramatic, and passionate fights, then the man will prove to not be the one.
• Rule 7: Hate always turns to love if the hero is persuasive enough.
• Rule 8: Heroine can't control her responses during sex or even making out.
• Rule 9: If the heroine has made a mess of her life, the hero will be the only one who can sort her out.
• Rule 10: If she's rich, he's also rich. If she's poor, then he's rich. See Rule 1 They will only be about equal if they're blue-collar or middle class.
• Rule 11: Even if the hero appreciates larger than average women, the woman will still be self-conscious about her body and lose the weight by the end.
• Rule 12: The bad boy must be emasculated by the love of a good woman.
• Rule 13: If the heroine is a bitch--that's fiesty. If the Other Woman is bitchy, she's a bitch who deserves only bad things to happen to her.
• Rule 14: She so bootiful, but she doesn't know it.
• Rule 15: One man-- arrogant, more aggressive, and more domineering. Other--respectful, quiet, and egaltarian. Who wins? Mr. Testosterone, of course. But she is still rather fond of Other.

The Loneliness of Not Belonging

Have you ever read the winning entries of a magazine fiction contest and wondered how did these stories win? What's so special about them? I'm falling asleep as I read this crap. I can't get past the first paragraph... I do. Then I wonder why I bother at all. What I consider to be good will never align with what the majority thinks is good.

I tell myself to quit whining (to myself) over it, just worry about becoming a better writer (subtitle drop). But how do I know if I'm getting better if I don't adhere to the same standards of "good" as everyone else? Isn't that concept one that a majority agrees with?

Is it really good if I'm the only one to think so?