Getting Crafty! Studying story structure

So. In May I wrote 62 000 words of my book--I'm aiming for about 80 000. But I had to stop because I just don't know who my antagonist is. It could be my heroine herself, but there are some other possibilities. Just have to figure out which one will be best, create the most Conflict! Ta-da! La-la!

“‘The cat sat on the mat’ is not the beginning of a story, 

but ‘the cat sat on the dog’s mat’ is.” —John Le Carré

I decided to just put it aside for a bit, and study structure. I bought Lani's structure lecture, and I've done all my homework. I'm listening to both the Storywonk podcasts (author Lani Diane Rich and her husband talking about what makes for good storytelling) and the Popcorn Dialogues (Lani and author Jennifer Crusie analyzing films for good storytelling.) I'm watching more of the movies watched on Popcorn Dialogues, and applying the Lani structure to them. Bla bla bla analyze analyze analyze.

I'm also reading a couple books on writing, including my latest fave: The Modern Library's Writer's Workshop, written by a guy ran Columbia U's creative writing program. In his section on revision he has some interesting advice:

Write out a summary of your story. And then keep writing out other summaries, changing the way it's told: "Change the beginning, change the ending, shift points of view and perspectives. Keep each summary short [not more than 3000 words] and try never to devote more than a day's work to any one of them. ...you are testing the possibilities. ...When you are fully satisfied, you will have a map for your second draft."

So that's kind of what I've been doing. Tweaking something, and then trying to retell the story, see if it works better or worse.

He also advises complete rewrites when making new drafts, which another writing teacher advised in another very good book: A Passion for Narrative. This latter guy said that among the students whose work was published or won awards/contests, they were more often the rewriters.

I've always just worked over the first draft, albeit several times. But this time my second draft will be a complete rewrite, and I think that's why I wrote so many words in May. There's an expression my brother shared with me: "Write for the trash can." When you know the first draft is only the primordial soup from which your story will crawl, it doesn't have to be neat, it can be experimental, you can shift POVs, you can cut a character and not go back to erase him, you can just write and let the ideas come at you. You can let your inner pantser pants.

Anyway, I'm happy with my (not even finished!) trash can draft. But now I've got to figure out what's gonna crawl out of it.
   
 

Romance Novels: on the cutting edge of science

I've just started a book called Hold Me Tight: Seven Conversations for a Lifetime of Love by Dr Sue Johnson. Already the introduction and the first few chapters are fascinating.

She's a clinical psychologist and has made adult love--specifically between couples--the focus of her research, pretty much her entire career. She gives a long description of John Bowlby, the main psychiatrist who pioneered the idea that children have an actual physical, survival need to be held and cuddled and cared for, back when it was believed that this would make them weaklings and sick adults. It took him years of experiments to convince his colleagues that when parents are emotionally and physically close to their children it results in happier, more well-adjusted children, which of course revolutionized how we see child-rearing.

Johnson and her colleagues believe the same thing about adults and love relationships. She cites all the studies that show how emotionally close relationships make you less sick, lower stress, help you face challenges, and so forth--that's the part I'm on. I'm sure you've heard many of those studies, as I have. But I've never seen them framed quite this way--as being part of a wave of revolution in the field of relationship studies, as big as what took place in child-rearing studies. The child-parent bonding is called "attachment theory" and that's the term she uses for her theory as well:

"when I tried to get my views published, most of my colleagues did not agree at all. First they said that emotion was something that adults should control. ... But most important, they argues, healthy adults are self-sufficient. Only dysfunctional people need or depend on others. We had names for these people: they were enmeshed, codependent, merged, fused. In other words, they were messed up. Spouses depending on each other too much was what wrecked marriages!"

I find this all veddy fascinating. I'm not someone who's naturally physically affectionate, or very emotional (except when pumped up on Topomax) but that doesn't mean I approve of myself, or am not making efforts to change. There are two stories that always come to my mind when I think about the importance of physical affection and emotion. The first is the Romanian orphanages.

It must have been in 1990, I was 17 years old, that I read a magazine story about them. That's when I learned that when babies aren't held and interacted with, they just tune of this world--they don't become social. It was one of the saddest but also most horrifying things I'd ever heard of (and it applies to animals too.) It's just a fact--living beings beings need other beings to interact with them, and touch them and I don't see why that would change in adulthood.

Which is why we all loved this photo, right?

The second is the story of Ayn Rand, but it's so good let's talk about it tomorrow. The point I wanted to make today is that allll of this reminded me, once more, of just how annoying it is that people make fun of romance novels.*

Because one of the ideas you find in good romance novels is that a relationship can be a soft place to fall, and a springboard from which to jump and take chances, and a safe place to rediscover yourself, a mirror in which to see yourself better, and a firm hand to hold onto when you take the plunge. Romance novels these days walk a really fine balance between independence and dependence.

In novels by people like Jennifer Crusie and Susan Elizabeth Phillips, the women are very strong, but they still reach out and ask for help from their friends, and family, and from the hero, and it doesn't make them weak. They're learning to be vulnerable, they're learning to be trusting, but like in those child-rearing studies, being dependent on someone doesn't make you a weakling. And the good romance novels--of which there are many these days--show that.

Romance novels spend all their time exploring the science of love, and how it helps us survive. Which kind of makes it science fiction. ;-)

"We now know that love is, in actuality, the pinnacle of evolution, the most compelling survival mechanism of the human species. Not because it induces us to mate and reproduce. We do manage to mate without love! But because love drives us to bond emotionally with a precious few others who offer us safe haven from the storms of life. Love is our bulwark, designed to provide emotional protection so we can cope with the ups and downs of existence. ... We need emotional attachments with a few irreplaceable others to be physically and mentally healthy--to survive." Dr Sue Johnson

_______
*I consider it all the more important for me to defend romance novels because I don't exclusively read them, so no one can say, "Ohh she's just being defensive cause she's a junky." I've read just as many books in the mystery genre as I have in the romance genre. And again in science fiction, and again in teen fiction. And certainly more general and "literary" fiction. ;-)

     

How Not to Write a Novel: A Book review, or Save the kitten!

I have a lot to say about writing these days, but my thoughts are a muddle. So I'll start with a summary of a writing book I read.

I took out this one--How Not to Write a Novel by Sandra Newman and Howard Mittelmark--because it seemed like something I could pick and choose my way through, but I liked the premise so much, I decided to speed-read the whole thing.*

Oddly enough I didn't realize til now that this was the same book my friend Swissgirl had photographed for me in London years ago cause the cover was funny. The library edition didn't have this great cover.

The premise: Every writing book tells you different, contradictory advice. But if you locked those authors in a room with slowly rising water, and no chance of escape until they reached a consensus, this book would be the result. <--This is the funny. (Except I wrote it more concisely because their writing, though funny, is oddly stilted at times.)

Here's more of the funny: 

In re using your book to blab about Stuff: "The unpublished novelist should remember that his potential readers are people just like the friends and co-workers who didn't want to hear this stuff in person."


In re a setting where 100% of the characters are white and middle to upper class unless it's rural Sweden: "This will eventually give the reader an eerie feeling that some form of ethnic cleansing has taken place."

In re sex scenes: "Giving a reader a sex scene that is only half right is like giving her half a kitten."

In re sex and comedy and postmodernism: "Any of the following crimes against fiction can prevent the publication of your novel. Committing several will prevent the publication of anyone whose name is similar to yours, just in case."

You'll be entertained, even as you're shamed for your literary crimes. Now here are...

The kind of advice they give, not shared in other writing books:

* When every passing mood is lovingly detailed--a play by play of your protagonist's every passing emotion. Romance genre authors do this a lot. I get Le Tired of hearing what people are thinking over and over. Especially as they think about the same problem over and over and over. I'm all: Georgette Heyer never did this to me.

* Excitedly sharing everything you learned while researching. I learned this in high school when I read Lace II. At the time I thought the author was showing off, but Newman & Mittelmark are right it's probably just excitement. My favie Connie Willis does this cause she's a research goddess. (Mind, it didn't stop her from just winning her 7th Nebula. That's 10 Hugos and 7 Nebulas, boys-who-read-sci-fi-but-have-never-tried-Connie-Willis.)

* Characters who laugh disproportionately at each others' jokes. It's best, they advise, to err on the side of caution. So very true. I have a friend who has sworn off one particular author because she can't stand all the snickering that goes on over witticisms that just aren't witty. Mind you, this is hard when you're writing, because sometimes you need to show your characters bonding by laughing at something together. And then you re-read your own scene and you're all: "This sounds lame." Easier in a first person book when you can write "And then we laughed like loons" and your readers can always pass it off as an unreliable narrator.

* Don't sneak in a propaganda pitch for your idée fixe: Daylight savings time is bad, or the tenure system is bad, or root canals are bad, or whatever. Ya this one happens a lot in what passes for entertainment by political radicals. Sometimes you come across a political comic or graphic novel, and you know it's meant to be funny because somebunny radical has written a review saying it's the biting satire, but really it's so unfunny I'd rather go do a little dusting. It's not good satire if you're just coming out and making your point. Don't encourage these people.

Things I could identify with:

* Introducing characters for no good reason, or for one reason only, or as a big family mass, or because you think you need to show that the character has a mother so there's a "Hi dear how are you" phone call scene. <-- I've had to catch and fix varieties of these in my writing.

* Poorly rendered non-native English: My last book has French-speaking and accented characters, so I had to work very hard to find the right way to tackle it.

* Character's thoughts transcribed for no reason, usually taking stock of his life while watching the sunset or cleaning out the closet. lol lol and lol. Because I was writing a sweet romance, which I don't even like, I made myself do things I don't even like, like Too Much Inner Monologue. There are no sunsets, but my heroine does unpack a box. Shiver.

* Poor renderings of other classes: In my case it's rendering Other Ethnicities, because my heroine is half Mohawk and half Nuu-chah-nulth. I see failure as inevitable and something to be humbly accepted her, but I have to aim for the most respectful failure possible.

Points I didn't agree with:

* Their view on animals was basically don't do them, unless the animals are the ones solving the mysteries. So ridick. They're clearly haters. Might as well say don't write toddlers, because they play about the same role in comedy books as animals. Besides writers like Jennifer Crusie and Jilly Cooper who write wonderful animal characters, the Georgia Nicolson series wouldn't be half as funny without the Angus the Cat terrorizing the neighborhood, and Georgia's sister Libby, who dresses up Georgia's Jesus statue and says it's Barbie's cousin Sandra. Just shows you can't take all writing advice books as gospel.

The only person who can wrap Angus around her finger is Libby.

* They had a weird bit about "the protagonist is not allowed to [romantically] settle for less" like the nice neighbor best friend. They followed this up with a better worded point, that the love interest has to be sexually attractive in some way. I would nix their earlier point, but agree with this one. As decreed in the Tao of Steve: Be excellent in her presence. Everyone is sexy once you see them doing something they're good at, whether it's witty insults, canoeing, caring for someone sick, or speed accounting. To go from Best Bud to Hero, he (or she) needs to show excellence at some point. That can be the neighbor or best friend.

Bottom line:

Oh you want to borrow or buy this book. It's a gas and will prevent any authors with similar sounding names as yours' from getting rejected.

Their next book:

_____________
*I didn't understand speed-reading until I became a Poli Sci major at a university where the profs all believed in huge reading lists. (Unusually so, if people from other schools were to be believed.) The only way to survive was to learn how to skim a reading, figure out which parts you really had to read, and which parts you could skim--usually the examples, and anywhere the author repeated him or herself. That's when you learn that most non-fiction books (outside of histories) are 20% argument, 40% examples, and 20% repetition. Really bad ones are 20% examples and 40% repetition. And REALLY bad ones have a big font, are slim, sold in a glossy hard cover, charge $40, are called Business books and promise to make you a millionaire. #1 Lesson From University: Always read the article version of something if it's available, rather than the book form. 
       

The Betty-sized Hole in My Soul?

I don't think I've mentioned my stovetop method for Big Decision Making. If I'm wondering about big things like "should we get a house" "should I return to school" I imagine taking out a pot, making up a House Dish, and setting it to cook. Sometimes I'm actively working on it--adding ingredients, stirring--and other times it's sitting on a backburner, just simmering. Once in awhile I take off the lid to see if it's ready, or if it needs more time. If I let big decisions take their own sweet cooking time, I don't regret them. (I can only think of one example where a dish was ready, I ignored its readiness, and it burned.) Here's a story about one of those decisions.

THE CHURCH BURNER
In 1997 I wasn't renominated to the Board of Directors of our wee church. I was the only young person on it (23) and one of the only women. I was disappointed cause I loved doing it, but I decided it just meant I was not the vision the deacons and elders had for the church. (To this day Fernando's convinced it's because he had breakfast with one of the deacons and told him that we loved the Howard Stern show--which we did. lol.)

I know I was still attending a bit in 1997, but it was just because the people were absolutely wonderful. Warm, generous, kind, beautiful people. But I was no longer learning. It was like reaching the end of your university degree where you start getting bored. And since I didn't agree with most Christians' beliefs about homosexuality, abortion, women ministers and so forth, I couldn't be authentic. I could love people, care, joke, and listen; but I couldn't talk about my real ideas.

So with no bitterness I moved on. I had long intellectual conversations with my buddies, and I decided that would be good enough until one day either some kind of church, or small group, would enter my life again. I'd know it when I saw it. In the meantime there's really only two people two whom I fully express my spiritual beliefs, and that's my friend Maewitch, and my dad. My dad is a very intelligent and open-minded Christian so I don't even feel like I'm missing challenging Christian conversations in my life; what I've been looking to replace is a community of like-minded, spiritual, growth-oriented people, to support each other, share ideas with, care about.


TWO WEEKS AGO
Flash forward to two weeks ago. Fernando's sister was visiting. She was telling me about a church she finally found that she LOVES, and it's very near where I live, so I was intrigued. I thought... hmm... maybe this is a sign... (cause all these years I've had my little feelers out, ready for a sign.)

But then she said their service is Sunday in the morning, and I thought, no. Emphatically no. There is no way that the church that I Am Meant To Be With will involve mornings. I'm not even being silly here.

But then she said they were starting up an evening service. Oh hmm interesting. She was very enthusiastic about the minister, about the people.

Then she mentioned the name of the church, which included the word "baptist pentecostal"* and I remembered the reason why I don't want to be a part of any mainstream church, unless it's one of these nice liberally ones that's into gay marriage. (Which is not to say that I judge Penguin--she's not against gay marriage.)

So no, not the sign I was looking for, after all.

After Penguin left, little thoughts were bouncing around in my head.

Fernando had been playing Warcraft all this time. I told him my thought about her church, and how it had almost seemed like a sign, but no.

He said: "It seems to me that The Betties are the church you've been looking for."

And I said: "You just read my mind."


WHAT A SNEAKY POT!
And like all decisions when you properly follow the stovetop method, it hardly felt like a decision at all. I had chosen the church without choosing a church. Let us review the requirements...

TIME: They're on the internet so I can "talk" to them whenever I want, and in any case a surprising number are up all night like myself (plus some are in the UK and Australia etc.)

DOCTRINE: There are a lot of Betties, so there may be Betties who don't believe in gay marriage; but the subset who blog a lot, and whom I therefore interact with the most, are generally a liberal, anti-racist, pro-LGBT, feminist gang.

GROWTH: Besides the occasional Christianish-type, there are lots of atheists, agnostics, witches, buddhists, and so on.  This is the mix I like. Most people I know are atheists so I like this better balance of beliefs, it's how I add to my core beliefs. I've read Siddhartha, Walden and Ayn Rand because of friends, and in future will be reading an oracle deck, a buddhist book, and a Starhawk title because of Betties. (Okay the Starhawk is from old friend Maewitch, but she introduced me to Jennifer Crusie, so she's my Alpha Betty.)

AUTHENTICITY: Betties have strong opinions, but they create safe zones where you can have a breakdown, be snarky, be shmoopy, talk about sex, express your fears, talk about mental illness, rant about what angers you, get offended, apologize, and send out "fairy god betty vibes" when someone's life takes a nosedive. Things get real, real fast. And then they usually get silly.

GOALS: The general cut and thrust of conversation--beyond the daily bread--is about trying to be good people, finding our ways through life, helping each other out, and spiritual growth, however that's defined in each person's life.

OTHER Since the Betties originated in the fandom of Jennifer Crusie and Lani Diane Rich (Lucy March) there's a preponderance of writers and readers, which makes it a particularly well-suited community for me. There's a LOT more worship for bacon than a nice vegan girl like myself can take (facepalm) almost every last Betty owns a rescued cat or dog. Finally, snarky humor is allowed--thankfully cause it's written in my DNA. And if you offend someone, there's room for apologies. There's also a patented word for dispensing unwanted advice "assvice" which is good, cause it's another bad habit of mine. But giving each other assvice is a general Betty trait, so at least I'm with my peeps.

There's also a maturity level that you just don't get in all communities, off or online, which is why I've never been able to bring myself to join a vegan community. There are many vegan individuals who I lurv; but I've been part of a fundamentalist church once in my life, and I won't go there again, not for the rightest of causes. The Betties are not fundamentalists. They are first and foremost compassionate--towards people, animals, and the planet. And experienced enough to have learned that drawing the balance between those three, while still protecting one's own life balance, is always going to be a flawed and humbling journey.

And so... Miss Mabel is officially removing one pot from the stove. This baby is cooked! (Mmmm babies. Better than bacon.)

 

______________

* Oops - correction added May 26th, after I saw my sister-in-law again. I'd forgotten what kind of church it was when I wrote this. Oh those Christian churches... they all look alike to me. ;-)