Fiction Friday: You are NOT J. R .R. Tolkien

I've only read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings Trilogy once.  It was actually years ago, and I've very much wanted to read them again, but, dude!  Those books are long.  I would probably have to devote an entire summer to reading them, so maybe next year?

Even if I haven't read them in a while, they remain some of my favorite books.  Samwise Gamgee is my second favorite fictional character.  I can't watch the end of the last movie (Return of the King) without weeping.  The book The Return of the King made me weep, too.  After journeying along with Samwise and Frodo (and believe me, with as long and as well-written as those books are, you literally feel like you're journeying with them), it broke my heart to have to see them part at the end.  Hopefully I didn't ruin that ending for you.

Tolkien was a genius, and eventually I'd like to delve into some of his other work.  I have a copy of The Silmarillion that I have yet to read.  Why?  Because I'd probably have to devote a good month to that thing in order to give it proper attention, and I don't have that kind of time at the moment.  Tolkien's works need time to properly digest.  They deserve every bit of that time. 

Other books, however, don't deserve that kind of time and devotion.
There was a time when readers wanted to read books full of descriptive landscapes, wordy settings, lengthy passages about various unimportant objects that happen to be sitting around in a room.  A lot of these books are wonderful.  I have nothing against them.  It's just that most of them were written in the 1800s, and it seems to me that a lot of today's authors are suffering under some kind of delusion.  Either they believe they're still living in the 1800s, or they believe they are, in fact, J. R. R. Tolkien.

Tolkien did not write LOTR in the 1800s.  He wrote LOTR in the earlier half of the 1900s.  In the case of this work, however, it doesn't really matter, because it was ground-breaking.  LOTR was pretty much the first of its kind, which means it would have done well in whatever particular time it was written.  Just about every fantasy author since Tolkien has ripped off been inspired by LOTR.  If Tolkien had not written this work, I seriously doubt modern literature would be the same.

I'd also like to point out that Tolkien's use of the written language was amazing.  I haven't read the books in many years, but I have skimmed through them, just to relive the beauty of the language.  Tolkien knew how to weave words together.  The following is a brief excerpt from Return of the King:

The great shadow descended like a falling cloud.  And behold! it was a winged creature: if bird, then greater than all other birds, and it was naked, and neither quill nor feather did it bear, and its vast pinions were as webs of hide between horned fingers; and it stank.  A creature of an older world maybe it was, whose kind, lingering in forgotten mountains cold beneath the Moon, outstayed their day, and in hideous eyrie bred this last untimely brood, apt to evil.  And the Dark Lord took it, and nursed it with fell meats, until it grew beyond the measure of all other things that fly; and he gave it to his servant to be his steed.  Down, down it came, and then, folding its fingered webs, it gave a croaking cry, and settled...digging in its claws, stooping its long naked neck.

Wonderful!  Ooh.  I might have nightmares!

I've read a few more modern authors who seem to think that they have a similar grasp of the written language (Christopher Paolini and Cornelia Funke immediately come to mind), and well, they just don't.  I'm not saying that they aren't good.  In fact, I enjoy their work.  I simply enjoy their work for the stories, and not the long, detailed, and completely unnecessary descriptions and/or situations that I have to work through in order to read the stories.  The problem is, sometimes I'm not sure if I think stories like this are worth all the effort and time involved to actually read them.  And that's sad.

I'm not saying description is a bad thing.  Not at all.  Small details are nice. Is it vitally important that the main character is wearing a blue shirt? No, but it's okay if an author wants me to know that, as long as he/she doesn't, for no good reason, tell me that the main character is wearing a tagless, pocketless cotton blend periwinkle blue polo with a yellow stripe on the sleeves.  If the lengthy detail about the main character's shirt was to make some kind of clear point or was necessary to the story somehow, that's fine.  Otherwise, leave it out!  See, what I really don't like is when an author goes on and on about nonessential details that don't make the story more enjoyable.


What today's authors have to understand is that most of today's readers aren't interested in major detail that 1) isn't essential or at least relevant to the plot, or 2) doesn't significantly add to the enjoyment of reading.  That means that not all excessive descriptions have to be integral to the plot, but if they're not, then they had better be stinkin' good. 

Readers, for the most part, are not stupid.  They do not need an author to figuratively hold their hand.  It insults a reader's intelligence if an author includes too many non-essential descriptions. 

Maybe it's sad that society is all about instant gratification.  Maybe it's sad that we can't sit down and enjoy a lengthy book with incredible descriptive scenes.  But honestly, I haven't read many modern books that have long descriptions that take my breath away.  Most of them just make me want to put the author in the Literary Naughty Corner.  The most enjoyable literature (Harry Potter and The Hunger Games immediately come to mind) I've read lately has a good balance of description and pace.  The authors know what they need to include without putting in too much.  They know how to keep the story flowing without getting stuck in some kind of pointless drudgery that no one wants to read.  They know how to make the characters interesting and relatable without telling us a million little details that aren't relevant to the plot.  Believe me, Paolini, I could care less that Eragon likes to shave using magic.  If it's not important, or otherwise really good, don't include it.

And just so everyone knows I'm not picking on anyone, I'm going to go ahead and say that I was once quite guilty of believing that I was J. R. R. Tolkien.  I believed I had every right to write a 175,000 word YA fantasy novel, because I was just THAT good.  No.  I wasn't.  After much, MUCH, editing, that book is now under 75,000 words.  I still have some minor editing to do, but it'll probably stay under 75,000 words.  That means that about 100,000 of the words I originally included were unnecessary. 

I'm not Tolkien.

Neither are you.

Which kind of takes the pressure off every fantasy writer out there.  I mean, no matter how awesome we are, we'll never be as awesome as Tolkien.  Just something to think about.

Conversations with Myself

Lately, I've really been thinking a lot about characters.  In my opinion, they're more important than even a good plot (though a good plot is very important).  As I've said before, characters are what make readers keep reading.  If the reader has an emotional attachment/investment towards the characters, it's going to compel the reader to want to find out what happens to those characters.  Good characters drive the story even more than a good plot, in my opinion.

So for the next few Wednesdays, I'm going to try to talk about different aspects of characterization.  I don't know if I'd consider myself an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but since I've written three books and portions of other books, I have had a little experience in what works and doesn't work.  Today, I'm going to write about dialogue.

I want to say right off that dialogue is not my strong point.  I'm not the most articulate person; I write far better than I speak.  But most novels include dialogue, and I'm not creative enough to believably find a way around it.  So my novels have all included dialogue, as well.

Dialogue is important for many reasons.  It shows the inner workings of characters' minds, as well as relationships between characters.  But it's interesting to think of what dialogue really is.  The writer, who in my case is just one person, has to create a conversation involving more than one person.  I've got to pretend I know what each person in the conversation is going to say and how they're going to say it.  I'm often bewildered because I have no idea how people talk to each other, and I'm not sure if the conversation I'm essentially having with myself is even believable.

Sometimes, I go to edit some of my dialogue, and I realize it's not anything like what people would say in real life.  For instance, I'm pretty sure that in real life people don't sigh every other sentence, nor do they call each other by name after every other word.  And I think I've exhausted my mental thesaurus for phrases that could be used instead of "he said-she said." 

Other times, however, there is a sort of magic that happens.  The characters' conversations just flow from my brain onto the computer screen (or paper, if I'm going old skool--which doesn't happen often because my writing wrist is a pansy).  Sometimes I'm caught off guard by things the characters say, how they say them, or what they do while they're saying things.  These are the dialogues I don't have to edit much.  These are the dialogues where it seems as though there really are two people talking, and not just me writing down what I think these people should say. 

When dialogue like this happens, I know my characters have ceased to be ideas and have taken on lives of their own in my story.  I'm no longer having conversations with myself, but observing something outside of myself, yet guided by my pen (or more likely, my keyboard).

I'm not really in control of when these magical times happen, but I do have a few things I've learned to help me write better dialogue:

1. Observation.  Maybe this seems stalkerish, but a good way to figure out how people talk is to listen to people talk.  If I'm writing a YA book, it might be a good idea to listen to how teenagers are talking.  If I'm writing a science fiction series, it might be a good idea to listen to how nerds are talking.  If I'm writing a fantasy, it might be a good idea to listen to how Dragons are talking (lucky I've got five of those in my room).  Another part of this observation (that is slightly less creepy) involves reading other books.  It's easier to write good dialogue if I'm reading good dialogue.  The danger in this is that sometimes it's easy to steal lines from books and/or movies without realizing it.  Again...that's what editing is for.

2. Practice.  This means I ACTUALLY have to talk to ACTUAL people...and essentially observe myself.  How do I talk?  How do others talk to me?  It's important to think about these things while writing dialogue.  And I've found that the more I write dialogue, the easier it gets. 

3. Edit.  I think I've already mentioned this, but it's so important.  Sometimes even good dialogue contains repetition (a person can only run their fingers through their hair so many times before the reader starts wondering if the character has lice), poor phrasing, unrealistic or uncharacteristic word/sentence choices, etc.  I reread my dialogue more than my prose (though rereading both is important).  Sometimes I have a friend read over it to make sure I haven't missed anything.  I want to make sure I'm representing my character's words as clearly as possible so my readers can see them for who they are.

I'm sure I still have much to learn about dialogue and good characterization, but these are some things I've been thinking about lately.

Characters Welcome

I really like those USA television promos with the little "Characters Welcome" slogan. USA gets it. Good television shows don't do well because every single script is perfect. Even the best shows have bad episodes (except maybe Psych. Never saw a bad episode of Psych--but even that is because Shawn and Gus make me snortle). While good plots are very important, what really keeps people watching is the characters.

Plots are important, but I think characters are even more important. If you have a wonderful plot with amazing twists and turns, I'm probably not going to care too much about it unless you also have some amazing characters to experience that plot. I'm not going to relate to anything in the story unless I can relate to the characters. That relating can mean I understand where they're coming from and what they're dealing with because I've been there, or it can mean I want to know WHY they're acting the way they do in a certain situation, or it can mean I want to be more like them. However I relate to a character, I'm going to keep reading to figure out what's going to happen because I've made an emotional investment in the characters.

I'm looking back on some of my favorite fictional characters. At the top of the list is Meg Murray from "A Wrinkle in Time" and the other books in that series. I get her. In a lot of ways, I am her. I'm that awkward kid who gets frustrated with herself and others way too easily. I'm constantly struggling with the idea that I am not good enough, trying to balance it with the idea that I've been made in the image of God. Madeleine L'Engle struck gold when she found Meg. I know a lot of people who have said that they're just like her. If she can overcome the odds she had to face, then so can we. That's good writing.

Then there's my second favorite fictional character, Samwise Gamgee from LOTR. To me, this little hobbit is the embodiment of loyalty. He wouldn't leave Frodo. When he couldn't carry Frodo's burden, he carried him. I relate to Sam because I think I am a lot like him, but I want to be even more like him. I want to be that fiercely loyal friend. My emotional investment to him caused me to weep like a baby when I got to the end of the books and realized he would have to be separated from Frodo. It makes me a little teary eyed to think of it even now.

My third favorite fictional character is also someone I wish I could be more like. Lucy Pevensie from "The Chronicles of Narnia." I wish I could be as childlike as she is. Every time she has to leave Aslan, especially at the end of "Voyage of the Dawn Treader," I also get weepy.

Another of my favorite characters is Taran from "The Chronicles of Prydain." He's a boy and he's a little harder to understand than some of the other characters I love. I do understand him some. I do want to be like him in some ways (good characterization is usually pretty multifaceted). I also wonder what he's going to do next because I don't always understand why he acts the way he does. I want to see if he attains his dreams. I want to see if he gets the girl. I want to see what he learns through his journies.

It's the same sort of feeling I get when I read Harry Potter. I don't get why Harry acts the way he does. I don't know why he gets himself into certain predicaments, but it's interesting to see how he gets out of them. I want to see what happens to him. J. K. Rowling is very good at weaving elements through stories. Something that seems insignificant somewhere might be the very thing that ties everything else together. I like her writing, but it wouldn't be very good if she didn't also have all these amazing and interesting characters.

I've been thinking about my own characters. There's a few that are very much like me, and these have been the easiest for me to write. But right now I'm starting a new story and I think the main character is a lot like me, only I'm having a lot of trouble with her. I think the reason is because she's a lot like who I was when I was a teenager, only perhaps a little more down to earth (she has had more disappointment in life than I had ever had at that point in my life). She's closed. She doesn't let people in easily. I'm trying to write her, but she doesn't want to let me in enough to let me see how to write her. She has the potential to be someone amazing, and I want to show her that. Right now, though, she's uncomfortably awkward (I've finally become very comfortable with my awkwardness--read my socially awkward blog). She has one friend. She doesn't trust people. She's angry and bitter and extremely moody. She has a lot of good qualities, too, of course, but it's harder to see them because she doesn't like to show them.

I adore her, but she doesn't want to let me write her.

I know that sounds weird. I can't help the way I relate to my characters. Ever since a character named "Rain" entered my life and demanded that I write her the way she IS instead of the way I wanted her to be, I've been treating my characters with a lot more respect. If I expect them to live, then they're more likely to live.

But Rain didn't take over (and quite literally possess me for two weeks) immediately. I dreamt her up and thought she was someone quite weak and unimportant until one day she just spoke up and proclaimed her strength and vitality. Maybe it's the same thing with this other character. Maybe I need to give her some time.

I hope it doesn't take too long. I've got a plot (weak as it is at the moment), but without her and another character (who I am also having just a little bit of trouble with), the plot is pretty much useless. I want people to invest in her and my other characters. I want to make people care about what happens to her. At the moment, I don't think she WANTS other people to care. So that's where the conflict is. Sigh.

I think it's time to write letters to my characters again.

No NaNo!

It's that time of year again--that time when lots of crazy people who may or may not be writers all decide to attempt to write a 50,000 word book within the span of 30 days. November is National Novel Writing Month or "NaNoWriMo." How cute.

I've never participated in NaNoWriMo, and I'm only fairly certain I won't be participating in it in the future. I joke around a lot about how I'm anti-NaNoWriMo, but I'm not really. I do think it's silly, but there's nothing wrong with being silly. I often enjoy being silly. NaNoWriMo is just not my kind of silliness. If it's your kind of silliness, then have fun with that.

The goal of NaNoWriMo is to start and complete a 50,000 word novel in the month of November. I think it's an achievable goal, but I don't think that there are a lot of people that can produce quality work under such conditions. I know that no one is going to be able to produce a near-perfect work in that amount of time (that's what editing is for), but I do think that someone who dares to call him/herself a writer should be able to produce something worth reading. As someone who DOES dare to call herself a writer, it does kind of irritate me that there are people who call themselves "novelists" because they once produced a plotless 50,000 words of drivel during NaNoWriMo.

But all in all, I have nothing against NaNo. It's just something fun that some writers like to do, and I know there are some authors who have written great books during NaNo. If you've read any of my previous posts, you'll know I wrote a 75,000 word book in less than two weeks (I love to gloat about this to NaNo-ers), and I think it might be one of the best things I've ever written. Good writing CAN and DOES come out of insanity.

The thing is, I WAS pretty much insane for those two weeks, just as I was when I tried to duplicate the insanity over the past three weeks when I was trying to complete another 75,000 word book (in open rebellion against NaNo). I didn't make this goal because I tried to force it. My current book was not like the book I completed in 2 weeks. That book wanted to be written; the main character wanted me to tell her story. It was an amazing, wonderful, completely insane experience. But I have discovered that I can't force it. That writing experience came and passed. I might have a similar experience in the future, but if I do, it won't be of my own volition.

I'm also just not really into this whole, "Let's all write a book in a month at the same time" sort of thing. I get it that other writers want to form NaNo support groups and all be insane together. I guess I'm more of a crazy loner than a crazy socialite. I don't do things just because it's cool to do them, nor do I really get a huge kick out of doing something that a lot of people are a part of. I'd rather do my own thing, and NaNoWriMo is not it.

Also, I have three jobs and so far November has been insane-crazy-busy. Is it only Nov. 3? Seriously? Yeah. So far in this month, I might have written a whole paragraph on my current project.

So, if you're participating in NaNo, more power to you. I hope you write fast AND well. I hope that you produce interesting characters AND a discernable plot. I hope that you find all the support you need AND find time to be alone to write write write. But as for me, I'm going to sit off in my own jokingly anti-NaNo corner and throw paperwads at you.

Romance and Writing

I don't like Jane Austen.

Well, that's not entirely true. I've never actually met Jane Austen to know if I like her personally or not. Rather, I should have said that I don't particularly like the writing of Jane Austen.

People are usually pretty shocked when they learn this about me. I get all kinds of interesting reactions:
"But...but...but...you're one of those Englishy writer bookish types. You HAVE to love Jane Austen."
"But...but...but she's JANE AUSTEN. All women love Jane Austen. You're a woman. It's like an unwritten law that you must LOVE JANE AUSTEN."
"Um...maybe you should read some of her stuff again, because I just don't understand how someone couldn't like Jane Austen. EVERYONE loves Jane Austen."
"*Sigh* There's just something wrong with you, Ruth."

The last statement is probably entirely true. There is just something wrong with me. And that's all right. You see, I am an Englishy writer bookish type, but that doesn't mean I have to like Jane Austen. I DO have an appreciation for Jane Austen's writing. I understand the humor and the social aspects of her writing. I admire her for being a professional female in a time when it was practically scandalous for a female to be a professional. The problem I have with Austen is that I just don't like romance for the sake of romance.

Romances are so predictable. Couple meet. Couple has problem. Couple resolves problem (or the problem is somehow resolved for couple). Couple lives happily ever after. I grew up on Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty and all the other happy Disney stories. It didn't take me too long to realize that life doesn't work out like a Disney movie. People don't always live happily ever after. While I still love the old Disney classics, I think I've just gotten too old to embrace romances that I didn't know as a child. I can't take them seriously. A plot that just revolves around two people and their romantic relationship is just...boring...to me.

With that being said, I don't hate romance. In fact, stories WITHOUT romantic elements are usually just not that interesting to me (there are a few exceptions, but not many). I love it when there are two characters who find each other and fall in love within the course of their dealings with some other situation or situations. I DO like happy endings. It's just the whole concept of romance driving the whole story that I can't get past. I like romances WITHIN plots, just not as the plot itself.

For instance, my favorite book A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle, is NOT a romance. It's YA science fiction/fantasy. However, the story is greatly embellished by the connection between the main character, Meg Murray, and her unlikely friend Calvin O'Keefe. Without their close friendship (and eventual romantic love), I would not like the book nearly as much. The romance makes the story better, but it doesn't make the story.

In every major project I've written so far, there has always been a romantic love story woven somewhere into the plot. The love story, however, is not the driving force behind the story. There's always something bigger happening. Romance is great, but I believe it should be something that embellishes a plot, rather than being the plot itself.

Anyone is, of course, welcome to disagree. I know a lot of people do. I mean, after all, there IS just something wrong with me.