It's All About The He Says She Says Bull ...

As I'm sure I've mentioned before, I love audiobooks. At least audiobooks whose narrators know what they're doing. There are some audiobooks whose narrators are just so terrible that it ruins the story. Oftentimes it's because they have a monotone voice, or they don't put any inflection into the characters' voices, or whatever. And sometimes, it's the book itself that just isn't very good. The audiobook I'm currently listening to is Resolution by Robert B. Parker. It's a western. The narrator is Titus Welliver, who does a decent job. And it's a short book, only four discs, which isn't surprising if you're familiar with Parker's work. And if you are familiar with Parker's work, you know how he likes to incorporate speech tags for every speaking part. Here the opening to the Resolution:

I was in the Blackfoot Saloon in a town called Resolution, talking with a man who owned the saloon about a job. The owner was wearing a brocade vest. His name was Wolfson. He was tall and thin and sort of spooky-looking, with a walleye.

“What’s your name?” Wolfson said.

“Hitch,” I said. “Everett Hitch.”

“How long you been in Resolution?” Wolfson said.

We were at the far end of the big mahogany bar, sipping whiskey that I had bought us.

“’Bout two hours,” I said.

“And you came straight here?” Wolfson said.

“Ain’t that many choices in Resolution,” I said.

“There’s some others,” Wolfson said. “But they ain’t as nice. Tell me about yourself. What can you do?”

“Went to West Point,” I said. “Soldiered awhile, scouted for Wells Fargo, did some marshaling with Virgil Cole.”

And so on and so forth. I don't know at what point in my reading development I started to read-over these unneeded speech tags, but I know it's been years, and when I read a book like this, my eyes automatically skip them. After all, it's obvious who is speaking to whom. If it's not obvious, then yes, a speech tag is needed. But only one or two. Not -- and let's count these, shall we? -- eight in the first 150 words of a novel.

Of course, when listening to an audiobook, you're at the mercy of the narrator, and unfortunately Mr. Welliver goes through every "he said" and "she said" written. Which is expected, yes, but still, it gets real annoying real fast.

Elmore Leonard's famous 10 rules of writing talks about this. It's number 3, actually:

Never use a verb other than "said" to carry dialogue.

The line of dialogue belongs to the character; the verb is the writer sticking his nose in. But said is far less intrusive than grumbled, gasped, cautioned, lied. I once noticed Mary McCarthy ending a line of dialogue with ''she asseverated,'' and had to stop reading to get the dictionary.

And Leonard is, without a doubt, one of the best writers out there, especially when it comes to dialogue. Here's the opening to LaBrava:

“He’s been taking pictures three years, look at the work,” Maurice said. “Here, this guy. Look at the pose, the expression. Who’s he remind you of?”

“He looks like a hustler,” the woman said.

“He is a hustler, the guy’s a pimp. But that’s not what I’m talking about. Here, this one. Exotic dancer backstage. Remind you of anyone?”

“The girl?”

“Come on, Evelyn, the shot. The feeling he gets. The girl trying to look lovely, showing you her treasures, and they’re not bad. But look at the dressing room, all the glitzy crap, the tinfoil cheapness.”

“You want me to say Diane Arbus?”

“I want you to say Diane Arbus, that would be nice. I want you to say Duane Michaels, Danny Lyon. I want you to say Winogrand, Lee Friedlander. You want to go back a few years? I’d like very much for you to say Walker Evans, too.”

“Your old pal.”

“Long, long time ago. Even before your time.”

“Watch it,” Evelyn said, and let her gaze wander over the eight-by-ten black and white prints spread out on the worktable, shining in fluorescent light.

“He’s not bad,” Evelyn said.

Maurice sighed. He had her interest.

See the difference between the two openings in terms of speech tags? Of course you do. And while I love Elmore Leonard and appreciate his ten rules, I don't agree that you must always use "said." There are times when murmur, mutter, whisper, shout, yell, and the like are appropriate. But when in doubt, always use said.

Now, another thing worth mentioning is redundancies in speech tags, but that's a whole ’nother post in itself. Stuff like "I don't understand," he said, confused and "Yes, I think so too," she agreed. See?

*  *  *

On a Hint Fiction related note, I was interviewed by South Coast Today about, well, Hint Fiction.

*  *  *

As the year ends, it means award season is upon us, and Nick Mamatas gives us the cold and hard reality of most major awards. In the comments section he sums it up nicely:

Well, that's the thing to get. You think the Hugos mean something? You think publishing stories in top magazines like Postscripts (where it originally appeared) or Baen's Universe (where it appeared two months later because apparently so few stories out there this one needed immediate reprinting) means a damn thing? You think there are enough intelligent readers out there that such crap when it does get mistakenly published certainly won't be acclaimed? Wrong!

So when you get your stories out there and start blogging for support for the Hugos and Nebulas, what are you doing? You are pointing at that shitty story and saying, "Me too! I should be with that!" When you spend hundreds of bucks on Worldcon and make sure to network with that editor or this agent and be sure to "like" all the right Facebook status updates and line up on one or the other side of a Internet slapfight what you are doing is working to make sure you are counted right next to that story and its Hugo nomination.

It's the cure for King of the Shitheapism.

Pointless Stories

A few weeks ago the most recent edition of Postscripts -- which includes my story "Pillar of Salt" -- was reviewed by Locus Online. And my story, well, it did not fare well. At all. In fact, the reviewer pretty much hated it:

The employees in the post office of a small Pennsylvania town all know about the mysterious letters addressed to a Jonas Cotton that just appear in a letter carrier’s bag. And any carrier who opens one soon drops dead. Now Raymond, an aging, failed postal worker newly arrived in that town, is given the accursed route and, of course, finds one of the letters.

This is a difficult, distasteful story to read because the characters are such dismal, hopeless people. The story is told from the point of view of Raymond’s wife, who doesn’t particularly love or respect him — and we see no reason she should. It is so obvious from the beginning that Raymond is doomed, and that we will not care what happens to him, nor will anyone else including his wife. The only question is what she will then do, what will happen to her, but it is unlikely that anyone will care about her fate, no more than her husband’s. A pointless tale.

Ouch!

Actually, had I received this kind of review years ago, I would have been very depressed, but now it's like the proverbial water off the proverbial back of the proverbial duck. Granted, as writers we always want our work to be enjoyed and liked (and those who say they don't care, that they only write for themselves and nobody else, are liars), but it's a fact you can't get everyone to like everything you write. Sure, it stings, but you move on. As is the case with everything else in publishing, you hope for the best but expect the worse, so when a rejection or a not-so-great review comes along, you shrug and work on the next story.

But the thing that really stuck out to me was that very last sentence, those three words: A pointless tale. Clearly the reviewer (from what I can tell) felt the story was pointless enough that it didn't have to be written, let alone published. I even mentioned this to my wife, and she said, "But almost all of your stories are pointless." After a lengthy silence, I asked what exactly that was supposed to mean. "Well," she said, "it's not like your stories have morals or anything. They're just stories." And this, of course, got me thinking.

Do stories have to have points? Not necessarily morals, but a point that author is trying to make? Or can they just be stories for the sake of being stories? I know when I sit down to write a story, it's because something -- an image, a character, even a scene or title -- has infested itself in my mind that I have no choice but to write about it. I don't sit down and think I'm going to write a story about _____, because when you do that as an author I think it takes away from the actual storytelling ... if that makes sense. Or rather: you the author tells the story instead of letting the story tell itself.

I hate trying to classify works of fiction -- yes, this coming from the Hint Fiction guy -- but I guess the majority of the stuff I publish (in terms of short fiction, at least) would be considered slice-of-life. Fair assessment? Sometimes the stories may bring across bigger meanings to the reader, but I don't try to set out to do that. I just try to let the story do what it wants to do.

I talked to a past teacher about this recently and he said that, in his opinion, good fiction does not necessarily have to have a point or moral but should relate some kind of truth, be it of the world or human nature or something. I guess I can see that. But again, I can't see myself sitting down to write a story and telling myself that I'm going to relate some kind of truth. Those types of story, in my mind at least, come across as too forced, and oftentimes the reader can tell at once.

But that's just me. What about you?

Where In The World?

With NaNoWriMo wrapping up today, I figured now was a better time than any to give one important writing tip: Google Maps is a writer's best friend. I'm assuming that everyone is already aware of Google Maps and uses it religiously for their stories. Except, of course, those stories that take place in some magical kingdom of your own imagination. But for those of us who write stories set in the present real world, it can be a big help.

If you follow Joe Schreiber on Twitter, you know he just recently returned from a trip to Europe. Despite how much fun he and his family no doubt had, ultimately it was a business trip. After all, the sequel to his YA book Au Revoir, Crazy European Chick (which I predict right now will be a bestseller) is set in Europe, so he went over there to do research.

I don't blame him. If you get any excuse to visit another country to research a book and you have the time and money to do it, why not? Actually being in those locations will give you a better sense of the overall setting, much more than you could get from the satellite images from Google Maps. But for the majority of us who don't have the time and money to visit specific locales, Google Maps is our best bet.

I remember reading somewhere that in writing The Ruins, Scott Smith did not visit Cancún, Mexico, but instead researched the location from websites and brochures. Does that make him a lazy writer? Not at all. If he had the money and time and could have gone to Cancún, should he have done that instead? Who knows. In the end, what does it really matter?

Sometimes when using Google Maps I find myself becoming consumed with trying to make everything too authentic. Such as if a character is in a specific town or city and needs to, say, find a gas station, I search for an actual gas station on the map. Then I find myself changing the story to accommodate the true location. Which, if you think about it, is rather absurd. That's why, unless a story or book is taking place in a major city, I try to keep locales as vague as possible. It gives me, the author, more freedom to let the characters do what they need to do and not become restricted with "real life" ... though I must admit I still do try to keep things as real as possible.

But that's just me. Anybody else use Google Maps for their "research" or is there a better option?

And while we're on the topic (which we really weren't), did they ever capture Carmen Sandiego? Do it, Rockapella!

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuzc4jgwlT8

The Problem Of Prolificity

The following clip aired about a month ago, but I just recently came across it and want to point out a few things. Yes, it's about Jonathan Franzen, who, believe it or not, I don't hate. That's right, I haven't jumped on that bandwagon. I mean, really, what is there to hate about the guy? His talent? Have we really gotten to the point in our society where we hate people just because they are talented and successful? Okay, on second thought, the answer is obvious, but that's stupid.

In the following clip the deputy managing editor of Time magazine reveals their new cover, which is the one featuring Franzen. The last time an author graced the cover of Time magazine it was Stephen King. Which is interesting considering what all he says. Just watch.

Did you catch it? The man hasn't even read the novel yet. The person they really should have had on to promote the cover was Lev Grossman himself. But anyway, he makes it a point to mention how this is "not a small book. It's not weird. It's not odd." It's one of those books that "if you can get through it, will help you understand the way we live now."

Now I'm currently reading this particular book, about 80 pages in. It's good. I'm enjoying it. Is it the best novel I've read in the past decade? Too early to say. As a writer, I certainly appreciate a magazine like Time trying to make a point about novelists and getting more people to read (though, let's be honest, the vast majority of Time’s readership already reads more than one book a year).

But the impression I get from this clip is that the real reason Freedom is such a great novel is because it is not only 600 pages long, but it took the author almost a decade to write. Let's not forget that Justin Cronin's The Passage clocks in at a little under 800 pages and no doubt took him a few years to write.

Oh, but that's right. The Passage is "commercial" fiction. Freedom is "literary" fiction. Is there a difference? You bet you ascot there is.

See, the purpose of commercial fiction is entertainment and to sell a lot of books. The purpose of literary fiction is to write great art and win or be nominated for some really big awards ... and if it sells a few copies, great.

Stephen King could probably write a 600 page novel in a weekend, and it would be published and get somewhat good reviews and sell a lot of copies and be made into a movie. And then a year later the same thing would happen. He's a writer of -- yep, you guessed it -- commercial fiction.

But Franzen? He's a literary writer. It took him almost a decade to produce a 600 page novel. That's works out to about 60 pages a year.

Please keep in mind, I'm not knocking Franzen. I respect him and his work. But it's the perception of certain people that really irritates me. They see that it took him a decade to write his new book and they immediately think, Well it must be good because he put so much time and effort into it. And maybe he did. But these same people will look at writers like, say, Jodi Picoult or Jennifer Weiner, and see that it took them only a year to write a new book and they'll think, Well, I'm sure it will be entertaining, but it can't be that good if they were able to write it so quickly.

It's that wonderful problem of prolificity (which, by the way, is a word). But just what makes a writer prolific? One book a year? One book every two years? One book every five?

Of course, it depends on what kind of fiction you write. If it's commercial, then you are expected to produce at least one book a year. If it's literary, your best bet is to take a few years off, then spend a few months writing a new novel, then take a few more years off, then turn in your novel to the publisher. Oh yes, it will be an event. Who knows, you might even get your picture on the cover of Time.

Again, I'm not knocking Franzen. I'm just knocking the skewed way some people think. I mean, you saw the clip. Talking about how in our ADD-filled world of Twitter and Facebook and blah blah blah. These are the same people who will thumb their noses at something like, oh I don't know, an anthology of stories in 25 words or fewer. Would a book like that have been published ten years ago? Maybe. But even though it's being published today (or in two months), does that make it any less value or is simply a testament to our rapidly declining attention spans?

Awhile back, I was in New York and met a doctor who knew many important people in the world. We got to talking about writing and he mentioned how one of his favorite writers was Joyce Carol Oates. He mentioned how he knew someone who was on the committee who handled the Nobel Prize for Literature. He said he had asked this person whether they would ever consider Oates for the award. The response was simple: No, because she publishes too much and in too many genres.

Sad, yes, but that's prolificity for you.

On Being Naive

I happened upon this somewhat recent website, and while it's not an author website, I checked out the "About Me" and found the following:

I have a novel ready, and another right behind it. I am accepting agent queries at this time. Please include your query in the body of the email, and list authors you represent and any awards you have won. Agents not listed in Writers Market [sic] should supply additional references. Publishers are encouraged to work through the agent channel. Email first: XXXXXXXXXXXXX.

Now, as you can guess, this is an unpublished author. I know I've never heard of the person. But maybe they're a great writer. And maybe I don't understand agents and publishers like I think I do. I've always thought that if agents or publishers seek any writer out, it's from maybe reading a story of theirs in a magazine or journal. But who knows, maybe they do troll through author blogs, searching for a hot new talent. Let's just hope if they come to this writer's blog, they are listed in Writer's Market, or at least supply the appropriate number of references. (Or is this writer being facetious? I honestly can't tell.)

Awhile back I talked about what makes a professional writer, even one who hasn't published anything yet, and something like this ... well, I can just imagine that if agents or publishers did happen across this particular page, they might not stop laughing for quite a long time. I know I didn't.

Oh, and what should a writer put instead? Just an e-mail address. If an agent or publisher is interested in your work, they will contact you.