Confronting Writer's Block . . .for Good!

As an editor, I can't tell you how often I hear writers talk about "writer's block". Over several decades of working with writers, I have come to believe there is no such thing. Rather, "writer's block" is a collection of issues that are usually very easily resolved. In particular, an editor you can trust comes in handy when you are trying to sort out why you can't seem to progress in a writer project. Furthermore, when a person doesn't seek help and/or is unable to resolve the conflict, they often put the work aside and it never gets finished. I wanted to take this blog to talk about some of those issues. I hope it proves helpful.

First, understand that every writer gets stuck. It's a normal part of a healthy writing process, and the mark of a writer who truly cares about the quality of their work. Discovering the cause sometimes takes some firm self-talk and some exploration into the subconscious. There are tricks to get to that. The brave, professional writer accepts that these temporary stalls are normal, and determines to work through them with the same enthusiasm applied to the actual writing itself.

Let's separate the chaff from the wheat: there is a proportion of "writers" who use "writer's block" as an excuse for laziness. These are those people who like to proclaim they are writing a book, but have no real idea how to do it, and more importantly lack the drive, commitment, and love of writing to get it done. They are the people who like thinking of themselves as a "writer" despite the fact they have finished nothing - they are after the adulation they imagine writers get; they want to be thought of as a special, creative sort of person with a terribly complicated inner life.  I have little patience with such people, not only because it's so phony - I feel they distract and subtract from what a real, dedicated writer does. Their posturing and pretense is insulting to the craft.

And writing IS a craft. It has to be practiced and honed, to be done well. I find that the best and most industrious really like the process of writing: they love the rush that comes from having written a passage and knowing it is well-done. They love counting their words every morning and evening and measuring progress, and watching the piece as it is molded into something with a life of its own. Mixed with feelings of triumph upon its completion, is a little sadness at letting it go out into the world. These people understand the process of birthing a book. I am addressing these kind of people - those who, despite loving the process, find themselves stuck without a clue why or how to get out of the rut.

These are the most common issues for a writer who can't move:

• The plot structure is non-existent, sloppy, or simply needs reworked. 
• The characters are not well-developed, and so the writer is unsure about their motivation.
• The characters are very well-developed, and want to take the work in a different direction.
• The narrative needs to be in a different voice. 
• The wrong character is in the lead. (This is related to the point above.)
• The spirit of your grandmother/parent/boss/spouse/Joe Public/God is reading over your shoulder.
• You feel in over your head with a sex scene, a violence scene, or in the case of historicals, in terms of authenticity. 

Plot structure is a big one. The fact that your plot feels messy to you is a good thing: it is proof that you know enough to know a messy structure when you feel it. I'm not a big believer in "pantsing" - a word I really detest as an editor. Inevitably, when I work with a new writer who says they are a "pantser", the work is structurally a mess. (Experienced writers can get away with a little more chaos, because they know how to do the outline in their minds.) Again, writing is a craft. If you understand that as a writer, you respect that craft, and your own skill, enough to at least rough out an outline before you start. When you do, you see whether you actually have a plot or you need to work on the idea a little more. Although your outline will be altered as you work, its very existence from the beginning keeps you on track structurally. Often, when your structure starts to crumble, you give up a little and get stuck. If you don't see the road ahead, you stop, confused. The solution is to put the work aside and refer to your outline to see what isn't working. Or make an outline if you haven't. 

Characterization is a big issue in being blocked. I know several experienced writers who actually write out short bios of their main characters before they begin: even if they don't use all the material, they themselves have a good solid feel of who the character is as they write, and thus don't hesitate over motive. They instinctively know what this character wants and would do in a situation. When you try to push and pull and prod characters into directions that are illogical for them, you get stuck, and the work doesn't ring true.

Conversely, a very well-written character takes on a mind of his or her own and can insist on taking the writer in an unexpected direction. This happens commonly with experienced writers. The solution is to let them go. Fighting a strong character is a very common reason for a writer to feel stuck. "But that will change the whole plot!" So what? The end result could be brilliant, and will likely be better than your original plan. Trust your characters to take you in the right direction. If they are well-conceived to begin with, they will never be wrong. Think of it this way:  A great writer has deeply-developed characters from Chapter 1, then merely gets out of their way and lets them tell the story on their own terms. 

Wrong narrative voice.  I am currently working on a novel where I have changed voice four times. A lot of work? Absolutely! Frustrating? You bet! Enlightening? You have no idea. I don't regret a minute of it. This was my dilemma: First person lends an immediacy that took my reader into a past era in a very intimate way. On the other hand, limiting the voice to first person kept me from exploring other scenes involving other important characters in depth, since every scene has to come through this main character's perceptions. It's a complicated trick. I have her describing her brother's first experience in battle - and have to explain how and when and why he told her about it.  Ugh. I switched to third omniscient (too cold and removed), to limited third (better but still impersonal), back to first. I may end up in a sort of double first - switching voices between two characters. 

I have worked with dozens of writers who were struggling with a work. After talking to them about the story, I suggested they try another voice. When it works, it's magical. Sometimes when you feel you are struggling with a story - when it's hard to maintain the fire and care about the next chapter - when it all feels like a chore - you simply need to change voice. You should always feel the prose singing along. 

Wrong character in the lead. Oh boy. This is related to the above issue. Sometimes, the wrong character is in the lead role. Simply switching the point of view throws you into a new reality and that prose starts singing. Don't fight this idea - rewrite the first two or three scenes from a new character and see if it feels good.Try it. 

Critic over your shoulder. Even an experienced writer can fret over what people will think or say when the newest book hits the public. I have a golden rule for writers: Get it on paper, then worry about it in the edit. Just let that critic float away, and write from your soul, with the idea that not everything you write has to make it into the final draft. You'll be amazed how freely creative you will be. Chances are, when it comes time to remove some of it, you'll be so pleased with how it turned out that you'll risk the questions from Grandma. Or go to Plan B: Use a new pen name and Grandma won't know a thing! 

In over your head. This happens to the most experienced writers. With new writers, it's because once you begin to write a scene that is highly erotic, or very violent, or even very emotional, you have no idea how to come up with something that "sounds" remotely authentic. The truth is that these scenes are tough and take practice, and sometimes take guidance from an editor and/or experienced writer. 

I know a case in which a very experienced, talented writer, was confronted with writing a highly erotic scene in a novel because the plot demanded that it be shown. Her decision was a good one. Problem was, she wrote it - about two-thirds of the way into the book - like a porn scene. A bad one. Lots of dirty terms, moaning. You know what I mean. It was jolting to the reader, because up until that point the book had avoided eroticism. Plus, as I said - it was just bad. 

Now I have a theory as to why writers stumble over sex scenes: they are uncomfortable with it - and it is tough to do without some knowledge as to how to do it. I have another entire blog about writing sex here that you might check out. There is a way to do a graphic sexual scene that feels real, isn't porny, and doesn't hurt the quality of the book.

There is also a great way to do violence without making it sound overly-gory (thus amateurish - this isn't a video game for fourteen-year-old boys, after all!) or forced. But that also takes some knowledge and confidence, and perhaps guidance. 

People get into a lot of trouble with highly emotional scenes, particularly scenes with arguments or scenes with romance. The first ends up sounding illogical and forced and phony. The second can result in some hilarity: a scene between thirty-year-olds that plays and "sounds" like two fourteen-year-olds at a school dance.  

Sometimes you will feel stuck when you lack the background knowledge that you know will make the scene sound authentic. There are two things to do in this case: 1) Keep writing. Don't worry about how it plays right now - just get the bare bones of the scene written with the tools you have. You can add historical, forensic, or other details later when you have them. Then, 2) Go back and do the research, slowly and thoroughly. Enjoy it. Get excited about how you can work detail into the scene to give it an authentic feel. It isn't a chore to fill your head with authentic detail; rather, it's a fun challenge to make another world come to life for the reader. Watch how much the richness of that scene multiplies as you place those details here and there. Enjoy the process! 

In conclusion, let me say again as an editor and a writer, that when the method is sound, and you have given yourself great tools - organized plot, developed characters, researched setting, the correct narrative voice, freedom for the characters - the piece will write itself easily. It will sing along and you will enjoy the process of writing. This is how you should feel when you are working in a sound, healthy fashion. You should wake up in the morning thinking you can't wait to see what your characters can do next. If you find yourself hesitating to write forward - what we call "writer's block" - remember that you are hesitant for a reason. Don't feel defeated, but be proactive and out what that reason is. 

There is truly no such thing as writer's block - not in the sense that it is some magically paranormal roadblock suddenly thrown up in your way, and that you just can't conquer. NONSENSE!  You create every block for yourself by not using sound methods. Every. Single. One.  Knowing how to explore which of the above issues could be getting in your way is the road to taking control over your writing process, and throwing away the crutch of excuses so that you can really enjoy writing that book, beginning to end. 

When Abusive Women are Heroes

I've lately become hooked on the NBC show "Chicago P.D.", and during the past two months I've binge-watched six seasons of available episodes.  This is crazy for me, because I truly don't watch major network TV. At all.  But this show has been a pleasant surprise: great writing, great performances, grittiness without pandering to gratuitousness or smut - just good television.  Reportedly, real police advisers participate in all episodes to make sure the raids and shoot-outs look as amazingly realistic as they do. You all know me - I'm a sucker for action done well.

One character in the latter seasons, though, is keeping me up at night - and not in a good way. The character of Hailey Upton - a tough young cop who was meritously promoted to detective after a year on an undercover assignment (as opposed to by time on the job and/or conventional experience). She is the newest addition to the team.  Unfortunately she's also the most arrogant. The writers seem to have failed to give this decent actress the opportunity to flesh out a character - as I saw one astute fan online put it, she has three dimensions: angry, angrier, and bitchy.  And that's about it.  Is that what the writers think a strong woman looks like?

What disturbs me about the Upton character is two-fold:  I see a fan-base of millennial-age women cheering her as "ass-kicking", tough as nails, some sort of female hero icon; secondly, I see a societal trend toward some forms of abuse being acceptable by virtue of one's gender; like so many societal shifts, it is first illustrated in things like music and TV shows.

Hailey Upton, played by Tracy Spiridakos. 

Let me explain. This character is not a nice person. She's self-centered. She's rude. She's conceited. She is not a team player. Actually, she embodies a lot of the traits that we in the real world know would get us fired pretty fast.  I can hear the objections now: "But she's a Strong Woman!"  I would argue that she isn't that at all.  I think too many young women nowadays - as judging from their social behavior, the people they profess to admire, and the entertainment media they react to - think that excessive rudeness - particularly toward men - is being a "strong woman".  Call me old-fashioned, but I'm pretty sure that being a strong woman has something to do with things like self-control, generosity, compassion, humility and self-sacrifice, simple kindness.

But those traits are traits we traditionally think of as feminine. And because traditional forms of
feminine identity are now frowned upon, these traits aren't "cool" enough. That means that in place of things like self-sacrifice, compassion, empathy, self-control . . . young women have put aggression, intolerance (for anything they themselves deem not in keeping with their kick-ass view of things), controlling, self-aggrandizement, and impatience. They see a TV character who screams at men, "puts them in their place" (never mind that, as in the case of Hailey Upton, the men are usually just good men trying to do right in the world), and aggressively pushes her own agenda in peoples' faces, as the ideal woman.

Upton, no doubt bitching out Rusek (Patrick John Flueger) as usual. 

This is the most disturbing aspect of the Upton character:  the young male detective she is sleeping with - Adam Ruzek - bears the brunt of most of her abuse. She has zero patience with him, she reminds him of her superior rank, she insults him and his family members, she constantly browbeats and berates him at every turn. She displays no respect for him. The few moments she attempted to show any compassion for him were weak and nearly humorous, given her excessive bitchiness any other day of the week. A few episodes back, we have her pursuing him through the hallways, biting at his heels like a tenacious chihuahua, shrieking, "You're going to tell me what is going on RIGHT NOW!"  There just has to be a more mature, respectful way of communicating with a colleague than that.

The writers have not offered the male character so much as the opportunity to say to the little witch: "Look, your rank be damned, you speak to me like that again, this is OVER."  No.... he is simply expected to shake his head and take it.  Over and over and over.  I am angry about it as a fan, because it is so disrespectful to his character - who really would not take this. He's a gentleman - he'd give her the benefit of having a bad day the first time. But after that?

And this is my larger point:  Upton continues to perform what amounts to real emotional battering upon Ruzek, week after week.  And I guarantee, if we had a male character emotionally bash a female with whom he was sleeping, week after week - there would be a huge fan outcry.  He would not be seen as a "strong male".  He'd be seen as an abusive jerk.  And that is exactly what Hailey Upton is. But in the modern PC up-is-down  male-is-female wrong-is-right culture we are in, we can have a character abusing another and make a hero out of the abuser - just as long as the genders are arranged correctly. 

Dawson and Rusek, about to surprise some perps.

How have we come to a point where a woman who displays all the characteristics of a batterer, is a hero?  And that a man who is emotionally battered by her is expected to man up and take it?  This is progress? Seriously?  Again, call me old-fashioned, but abuse is abuse.  I don't enjoy watching it either way.  In my fan fantasy, I have Ruzek telling her off good and kicking her to the curb until she learns some manners.

Chicago P.D. is part of the NBC "Chicago One" series of shows, which also includes Chicago Med and Chicago Fire.  All three air Wednesday nights consecutively, with Chicago PD bringing up the finale. Chicago P.D. seasons 1-6 are all available on Amazon, and current episodes can be seen on HULU.  Visit Chicago P.D. on Twitter for episode updates, cast info, and more. 

Toward Better Writing: When Crazy Just Doesn't Cut It

Clowns and puppets. Back about ten to fifteen years ago, I noticed a trend in novels that I found infinitely annoying, and I have finally put my finger on why. I hope my observations might be useful.

It got to be predictable, particularly in the literary novel genre, particularly the best-sellers. Nowadays, you find it across genres. Characters had to be outrageous: they had to have almost unbelievable backgrounds; they had difficult to understand dilemmas, usually due to extremely far-fetched situations; they had names that ranged from sounding as if the authors' four-year-olds made up while munching on cereal at breakfast, and sounding as if the author had had one too many cocktails while sitting before the computer. Each of these characters was peppered over with a plethora of quirky habits. These aren't characters; they are so overly made up, so painted with pretty colors, you can't see their faces or souls. They are clowns.

Now you may ask, "What's wrong with that? Crazy characters are fun, Lichen! Some of the best and most memorable characters are like that! You snob!"

This is my problem with it: when you overdo it, you murder the very reasons you might successfully employ it as a creative device. You defeat the purpose - what might have been successful and interesting and drawn the reader in, in a more powerful way. You dilute that which you might have had.

This is why:

First, it is essential to a well-drawn character that your reader is able to relate in some way to her needs or frustrations or experiences or motives. I believe that is always necessary to a successful story. Now, your character might be non-human; he or she might be an anti-hero, possessing what many of us would see as negative traits; he or she might exist in an alternate universe or a time in the far past or distant future that you can't completely imagine. But that character must have traits at his or her core that the reader can relate to on a personal level. The reader must feel, in some important way, at one with the protagonist.  If this doesn't happen, the writer risks losing the reader - either in the bookstore reading the back cover and rolling his eyes before he puts the book back down, or sighing and tossing it aside in the third chapter as he sits on a sofa. A character is too far-fetched when he is made up of so much bizarreness (yes, I made that up, but it works here!) that the reader never bonds with him.

On the other hand, a character must possess some idiosyncrasy in order to be a character, and not a mannequin devoid of personality. Every elementary creative writing class teaches you to find something different to add to a character, in order to make him come alive. Maybe he can favor blue shirts only; maybe her shoes are always untied or her red curly hair always unruly; maybe he speaks with a brogue or a southern American, or British accent. Maybe she has lots of dogs or cats. Or walks ten miles to work every day. No one is interesting if they are like everyone else in the world, right? So a writer must find what can be unique about the character and emphasize that, in order to draw in the reader's interest.  But . . . too much weirdness, too many quirks, causes a character to feel overdone, overcooked, contrived, and well. . . phony. This is when the reader starts to disbelieve in the character. And thus lose interest in the character's plight. Bad news for your book!


In the art of writing for the screen or stage, when we learn the basics of plotting (and of course all of this applies to a novel or short story) we speak about the element of Suspension of Disbelief.  Have you ever been sitting in a theatre to see a play, and as the curtain rises you see that the set is very minimalist - maybe just a few chairs where you know there should be an entire room. Or a character's walk through what is supposed to be a forest, is a few risers or a ramp and some shadow scattered about the stage. But later in the production, you might realize that you have lost track of your initial worry about the set, because you have been engrossed in the story.  This is due to successful performance of a successfully-constructed script. The director, actors and writer(s) have achieved Suspension of Disbelief for the audience. In other words, the elements that might have caused the audience to disbelieve the story as it goes have been overshadowed by the larger story itself. The reasons for the audience to believe the plot being set before them - the obstacles before the characters and the motives they have as they fight for that which they desire most - are so powerful, that anything prohibiting that tendency to question, has been obliterated for a time.

Or have you ever sat and watched a film, and thought to yourself, "This is so stupid. This person would never do that. People don't act like that." You are bothered because the Suspension of Disbelief has not been successfully achieved; those elements that cause doubt in your mind have not been overcome by the plot or performances, and thus the film has failed to properly engage your imagination.

When you throw in too much of the bizarre into a character, your reader's ability to employ Suspension of Disbelief is impeded. If the reader already doesn't find your character believable (and to be relatable she must be a little believable after all!), why would he believe your plot?

To put all this simply: don't write characters that are so overboard weird that they sink into seeming silly. That is easier said than done, if you are a writer that loves quirkiness. So in the interest of the writers out there who may be in love with the Weird, let's set down some common sense guidelines:

• If you are going to name people silly names from the depths of your imagination, do that to only one character. One character with a silly/quirky nickname or a name that only they could have inherited from Great Grandpappy Pinecone, is enough.  Let people around that character have more mainstream, geographically/ethnically/era appropriate names. That way, your odd character really stands out and your story doesn't seem populated by people your reader can't relate to or believe (and if everyone in town is named ridiculously, can the reader believe the town is well. . . sane?).  An exception would be a group of siblings who were all given odd names to make a point, and in order to allow you to say something about family dynamics. 
  
• And let's say you do that. You have three sisters all with silly names their perpetually-drunken sire insisted upon. Then do it, but have one of them comment on the names within the narrative, because if the characters themselves acknowledge the ridiculousness, the reader will respect them and accept the reasoning, and thus believe in them and in the story. 
• Don't give your character fifteen quirks. Give him three, tops. Those three will stand out enough, will keep your character within the bounds of logic, and allow him to still be believable if a little . . . unique. 
• If you are giving your character an odd name, inexplicable quirks, and a crazy family, for Heaven's sake, make his background and dilemma believable.  Not that there is ever an excuse for a badly-constructed plot, but especially when you are demanding a lot of Suspension of Disbelief of your reader in the way of your character's very construction, do allow him a relatable situation to deal with.
• Keep this in mind:  Most of us in our day-to-day lives are a little (or a lot) turned off by phoniness. We can smell it a mile away by our thirties or so. And it bores us. Phonies wear a smell of trying too hard, of displaying their oddness like a badge, along with a silent, "I'm too cool for you all. . . see how weird I am?"  You know what I mean. Don't let your characters be that. Keep them real. Write a real character who happens to have an odd name and be dealing with a weird life circumstance. Don't use a character to parade around your favorite weird name, personal quirks, and idea for the weirdest plot ever. That is phony, and it isn't going to lead to good writing. Believe me on that. Don't make a character your puppet. Rather, write a well-rounded, believable, relatable character from the beginning and then let the character carry the story. You record the actions of the character as he guides you, you don't manipulate the strings.
• Cardinal rule: When the author is trying too hard to be cute, the readers feel it. Leave that in fifth grade, and just write a character the reader can respect (not necessarily like, but respect) and relate to in some major way. 

Respect your characters enough - whether they be animal or human, alien or not - to make them real so that the reader is drawn to them.  Bring each to life with a few points of uniqueness - a few odd habits, a few favorite turns of phrase, an interesting family member or two, one slightly odd experience in their past. Stop there. That's enough. 

Know when enough is enough, and never forget that less is more. And over-the-top is . . . well . . . just annoyingly hard for your reader to swallow. 

For more on writing good characters, see previous article: Characters: The Inspiration of Attraction.

50 Shades of .. What?: What Will Your Writing Legacy Be?

For a few years, many writers have kept silent about the phenomenon that is Fifty Shades of Gray, by E.L. James. The phenomenon is baffling on many levels, and frightening on several. While the general public obsesses, many in the writing world silently shake their heads and go about their own business; after all, criticizing another published writer is a tricky business - one doesn't want to look like an ass. But sometimes, a book is so bad, and its success such an interesting contradiction to logic, that one feels more comfortable discreetly expressing misgivings. And sometimes, some brilliant non-writer says what we are all thinking.

Consider a review of Fifty Shades that I read today. The reader who left this review on Amazon should really look into comic writing herself. She makes her points concisely, with examples, and finishes with a flourish of humor that Mark Twain and Oscar Wilde would have envied. I offer it here, because it touches on some excellent points, and can lead to some interesting discussion.

First I'd like to make the point that, regardless of the questionable literary merit of this book, the author is laughing all the way to the bank - as the feature film is finally in production. She wrote two books as sequels to this one. From a marketing standpoint, the entire thing - from the writing of a fairly badly-penned book, to its pre-sales publicity and continued marketing - has been a stroke of genius. I assume it was a sort of perfect storm of the ripe time for the subject matter from a sociological standpoint, the right literary agent who knew it would be sold, the right publisher who knew how to market it.

But various groups have raised ethical concerns about the book. Those who work for women's rights point out that it takes us backward. Those who advocate for victims of sexual violence decry its celebration of violent sex. Those who participate in the real BDSM culture worry that their ideology is grossly misrepresented in the hands of an author who apparently understood little about it (not to mention little about real human psychology). All of these are valid concerns. As a writer and former journalist, I had to take the position that the ethical tone of a controversial book should always be fodder for discussion (and I certainly was happy to see that happen when I released Gentlemen's Game) - one may criticize the way the writing was executed, but not the writer's thoughts. (Although perhaps we might point out her obvious inadequate research.)  So . . . I'd like to address the book's execution, in the interest of pointing out for my readers what she did wrong, and why it matters.  

I struggled through the book rolling my eyes, for many of the same reasons the review's author cites. It is structurally a mess (this despite the fact that the publisher's editors likely took a turn at spiffing it up for publication - you can't make a diamond out of mud). The author of the review above makes the point that the tone is very adolescent: this is a pet peeve of mine in "romance" and erotic romance. Writers, if you want your characters to feel like adults, you have to be narrating in an adult frame of mind. If you are uncomfortable in writing sexuality in an adult way, it shows. Be honest with yourself about your comfort level. When you shy away from real, adult sexual relationships, you might do what is common, and fall back upon speaking in an adolescent way as you narrate, tiptoeing around the subject, wincing. Readers will know it. And they won't respect the narrator's voice, or the story. 

Your characters, when you write romantic scenes, must be behaving according to their age group. Teens have a specific way of socializing with those to whom they are physically attracted; they have specific social activities, specific ways of flirting, specific ways of using language to relate to one another.  Adults do it all differently, due to a better sense of themselves and what they want, and more sexual confidence. Make sure that your characters as adults behave like adults, use words and phrases that adults would use.  

The writer of the review grew impatient with the many instances of the heroine's pointedly childishly coy behavior: blushing, batting eyes, biting lips, juvenile language. It was not only terribly repetitive (showing lack of creativity in the author) but it was something we have all seen before. Besides making the heroine play like a teen (and the reader subconsciously respects the teen less than an adult, simply by virtue of a teen having less of the kind of wisdom that only comes from having the time to mature), and a rather silly one at that, these behaviors should not be written because they are blatant clichés - we have heard them a million times in other badly-written books over decades.  What happens with clichés is that, as they are used again and again and again over decades, they lose meaning. The reader's mind skims over them, because they convey nothing new or interesting. Think of clichés as the murder of creativity, the evidence of lazy writing. As an editor, I'm tough about them - I recommend to a client that they rewrite the passage or chapter and lose the clichés and make an effort to use original language when describing a character's behavior. The result is inevitably a much more interesting scene. You want a character to be unique and interesting to the reader, and they just can't be if they are always aping some old behavior cliché. Someone should have told E.L.James all of this, and encouraged her to put originality into her portraits of characters - it would have added much more (badly needed) depth. 

The same would apply to clichés in descriptions of scenes. People tend to fall back on clichés when they are uncomfortable - as when writing violence, sex, or romantic scenes. (A client will giggle, "I just didn't know how else to say it!")  Part of learning to write well is to learn to call original imagery into your mind and put it on the page in words and phrases that are original. Some of the best scenes I have read that were sexual or scenes of intense violence, were not just descriptions of what went down, but rather passages in which the writer used original imagery (a curtain at the window wafting in the wind, a scent in the air, unusual words spoken), and/or metaphor to make the scene unforgettable. As a reader, which sticks in your mind long after you put a book down? - a scene with a simple description of the usual events in a sex act, or a scene like this one, a glorious sex scene by LAMBA-award winning writer, Erasmo Guerra? This is from his novel Between Dances:

Tonight, however, he felt the words rise from his tongue like spontaneous hymns and they gathered at the roof of his mouth. The words were as delicate and pure as pale Eucharistic wafers. Marco became Sunday School boy, make the signs of the cross, holy water and old marking head, heart and lips. He felt the heat of Jaime's breath evaporating his own, drawing it from out of his lungs and leaving him gasping, mouth dilating like that of a fish out of water.

Jaime lay under him, his face pressed hard against the pillow, moaning sweet sounds like a call to prayer. Marco came on bloodied knees, chest pounding under beating fists, fears burning away like incense. 

Now, Guerra could have written this scene with straight description - which no doubt would have resorted to clichés: one lover talking dirty to the other, the other face down on the bed. It would not have been near as interesting; it would have taken the reader to a place they had been a thousand times. Yawn. But this... this is written so originally, that not only is the language itself as lovely as a song, but it stretches the reader's imagination, and conveys an image of the scene that stretches the reader's mind into a place he has not yet traveled in a book. That is the mark of an experienced, sensitive, and gifted writer. That is what all great writers strive to be able to do. 

E. L. James has made and will make, a helluva lot of money. But that is the end of the legacy. She won't be remembered as an exceptional writer, and may in many quarters be remembered as a very bad one. The book won't be quoted in years to come in literary discussion. It won't be used in classrooms. It will end when something else more daring comes along - one cultural fad inevitably replacing another. The likes of daytime talk show hosts proclaim it as the instigator of new discussions about sexuality. I would point out that erotica has been written for years - and much better. Surely we already have discussions about sexuality born of better sources. Maybe the biggest lesson is that many women (and some men) just need to get out more - and read a wider range of books. Or that erotic romance needs to break into mainstream book retail outlets more than it has. 

My point is, each of us must decide what sort of writer we want to be, and what we want the legacy of our hard work to be. Well-written books have the power to move the imagination in ways that E.L. James cannot understand. If Fifty Shades had been well-written, imagine what it could have meant to the future of erotic literature. And how many more readers would have enjoyed it, and how much longer it would last, long after the feature film is old news. Imagine what a better reader experience it could have offered. 

Characters: The Inspiration of Attraction

Years ago, I read an interview with Mark Twain in which he discussed his characters. Perhaps it is accurate to say that, in American literature at least, few writers have drawn more memorable characters than Mark Twain did. I was just a young, green writer at that time, and I was interested to read that he had based Tom Sawyer on a real person that he knew - a friend from his own childhood. The character of Huckleberry Finn, on the other hand, was based upon three characters merged.

In my young writer's head, I had assumed that every character was made up, from out of the thin air of one's imagination. This seemed the only pure way to go about it - to do otherwise was taking a shortcut, cheating somehow. And to admit that a character was some sort of muddy hodgepodge of three people, why that was blasphemous!

Now, years later, my mind has opened with experience. Perhaps real persons truly fascinate me now - far more than a creation made solely of my own limited imagination could do. I suppose every writer has a different method and finds a technique that works best for him or her personally - but for me, I have learned what is to me the most interesting and exciting way to build a character from the ground up.

The artwork in the illustration to this article comes from artist Rowan Lewgalon. It was a surprise Christmas gift to me. It is based upon a character I write for an ongoing project in which I am involved - a sort of medieval story (11th century) where each writer has developed a character and adds chapter installments in turn. My character is a young Welshman/Breton Celt.  Braith ap Derfael was born of many years of interest in the Celtic culture of the early medieval period. What a joy it was to incorporate those interesting details about live in that place - which I learned almost thirty years ago now - into a story setting. Once I had pulled all those details together, I knew who Braith was - his history, his heritage, what his eyes saw, what his mind worked on, how his heart felt.

But that was only a shell of a character: I needed to know, in order to describe him and help the reader see him, other kinds of details. I needed a clear picture in my own mind of Braith as he moved through the streets of early London. I needed to see him move, his facial expressions, hear his voice, predict his physicality. I find personally that the way to draw a strong physical sense of character is to base it upon real people - if I can visualize in my mind someone I have observed closely, that clear image seeps into my work, draws the reader closer, and makes the character a stronger experience for the reader.  And here is the key: the only way I can know so many details about the physical essence of a character, is to have based it upon someone with whom I was enamoured.

Now I don't mean enamoured in the romantic sense. I mean enamoured in the sense that the person fascinates me. It's so much more than cerebral: there are some people who move us deeply, who we feel some knowledge of instinctively, before we really do know them.  Our experience of their presence in the world changes us, and we can't look away.  They may be someone who is truly a friend; they may be a family member; they may be a teacher or mentor; they may be a person whom we have encountered in the course of life who seemed troubled and lost, but held some magical, mesmerizing quality all the same; they may be an entertainer or other public personality.

In my own life, I am particularly drawn to two things:  people who are creative and innovative in their lives and mode of thinking, and people who are strong-willed in some sense.  Not coincidentally, my main characters have these traits as well. It is logical, fascinating, inspiring and lucrative for me to take the personalities I admire in real life and transfer them to my writing.  I'm not saying, however, that I think of someone I like and simply write them as a character, trait for trait. Not at all. Rather, I use the physical essence of a specific person from real life, and then write a character around that.

Look closely at Braith: those who know me recognize a certain entertainer. Rowan did not do this by accident: although Braith has little in common with a modern-day musical artist, she recognized small elements in my descriptions of Braith's looks, movements, speech pattern, etc. that suggested a specific person.  She was correct: keeping this person in my mind's eye made drawing a physical image of Braith very easy.

In my novel Gentlemen's Game, the character of Greyson - both physically and in terms of speech pattern and movement - is based upon a character from a television series I follow closely. I believe I borrow his looks from the actor, and his demeanor more from the character he plays (the character being very different from the actor's normal demeanor). In that sense, Greyson is a combination of two people. Other details - his profession, carelessly fashionable dress, past history - came from my imagination.  Thus, Greyson is uniquely mine, but because I was able to visualize a real person as I describe him, he rings truer in the reader's mind. I am able to present a picture in sharper focus to the reader.

The character of Jack in the same book is a little tougher. I saw Jack in my mind's eye physically, and he was also based upon someone I knew, but he was a much younger version. Still, having a real person set in my mind allowed me to write a better Jack.

For my story Quandary - upon which an upcoming novel is based, many readers are struck by the young character of Ryf. This character was a mix that was fascinating to me: he was a combination of another entertainer physically, with exaggerated edginess, and also a little of a teenager I know thrown into the mix. When I combined these two real people with elements of my own experience and imagination, I came up with an extremely unique character - nearly eccentric, and thus memorable - and once again I was able to paint a very sharp image of him physically for the reader.

Now, I look back on Mark Twain's words, and in the garish light of age, I understand I think what his technique must have been. He took people he knew, added and mixed, and came up with unforgettable characters because he was able to recall, visualize, and relate to the reader a very specific phyical presence for his characters - based upon looks, mode of dress, speech pattern, gestures and expressions - all the details that make a person fascinating. 

Next time you're feeling that you can't see a character clearly - pull that list from your mind of the people you are most strongly drawn to in life. Visualize those individuals who hold your gaze and attention - whether for positive or negative reasons - those people for whom the details of their essence are etched in your mind. Use the clarity of that vision, along with your imaginings, in your description to paint a picture for your reader that will render a character truly one of a kind - unforgettable!

When Characters Come Alive

People often ask me if I write an outline before I write a book-length manuscript. Here is what I tell them: For non-fiction always. For fiction, no. Many fiction writers do write and follow an outline, but a minority find that doesn't work and I am one of those. I tend to be, rather, very character-driven. I have to form a character in my head first. By the time I start writing I know this character's background, personality, preferences, fears, joys. The stronger and deeper the character is the better I write. I find that a strong character tells the story to me and I write it down.

One interesting aspect of working in this fashion is that sometimes characters do things I don't want them to. Those who have read Gentlemen's Game will be interested to know that I had no idea what was going to happen in Chapter 14 until about Chapter 7. I woke up one morning and knew what would happen, and wrote 14. This is one of the few times I wrote out of chronological order. I also did not know what would happen in Chapter 21 - the last chapter of the book. I was in the middle of it when The Scene started (those familiar with the book know what scene I mean!) - I thought "Greyson what are you doing?" I was horrified.

But this is the thing: if I try to force my characters into an action or direction that they don't want to go naturally, my writing stinks. I have to give them a long leash and stay out of their way. A few different famous writers have discussed this phenomenon - that of the character taking over. Most memorably Stephen King wrote a short story about a character coming after the author with a vengeance - Johnny Depp starred in the film.

Has anyone written a strong character that then wanted to tell a story? I would love to hear about your experience!