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. 

Revisting the Eternal Question: How Much is Too Much?

In a past piece, I talked about using as many words as one needs. I still get comments and questions about that question. I thought I'd try to give a little more perspective on it.  I once got an email from a new writer, who said this:

I notice I sometimes have trouble knowing when to quit. Like, when writing certain scenes, I fret about whether or not I'm saying too much, or not enough. Sometimes I'll write it real tight, but it will seem sort of truncated when read back. So, I'll add more, but find I'm meandering.

For example, let's say I wanted to describe a character's "wardrobe malfunction"...I could use this approach...

"When Bethany leaned forward, her generous bosom strained against the front of her imported Chinese silk dress. The dress, breathtakingly low-cut, was made from the same bolt of silk that her grandfather, an ex-British naval officer, had brought home with him after the war as a gift to the wife who, unbeknownst to him, had left him month's earlier to pursue a short-lived but torrid affair with the ne'er do well son of a disgraced Count who had lost his family's fortune to the Machiavellian scheming of a Viennese banker who just so happened to be seated right next to her this very evening, eyeing her dressfront and praying silently that it was made of one of the poorer quality silks that were often being imported today."

. . .  blah, blah, blah, you get the picture. Or I could say it like this:

"When Bethany leaned forward, her breasts fell out of the top of her dress and hung there like a pair of fried eggs."

Now, I'm just using Bethany and her dangling bosoms as an example, I'd never actually WRITE anything like that...It's just that it is often hard for me to figure out when to say less, and when to say more. I have a natural tendency to become long-winded in writing, and try to avoid too much of that. But I also don't want it to sound like a Twitter feed.

I guess I'll just keep working on it.

My reply to her was this:

Linda, I work as an editor besides writing myself, so I get a question similar to yours a lot. This is what I tell people: your narrative needs to advance the story. It might either advance the plot, or contribute to characterization/atmosphere. So in your first example, the story is not advanced by veering off the path into another story about her grandfather. I would say to an author "lose that!" - unless the entire plot needs to involve her grandfather and his history, in which case it would be justified. Does that make sense? So in summary: you never have too many words, IF they advance the plot, contribute to characterization, or contribute to atmosphere. I hope that helps. :) 

What, Exactly, IS a "Good Book"?

"Literary fiction, as a strict genre, is all but dead. Meanwhile, most genres flourish."  - Dean Koontz

"True ease in writing comes from art, not chance, as those who move easiest have learned to dance."  - Alexander Pope

Today, as never before, a person with little writing skill and a good idea for a story can easily and successfully enter the publishing marketplace. A century and a half ago, a "writer" was someone fortunate enough to have had the upbringing that afforded formal education; after that, he or she would have to either have the means to live a life of leisure and have no need of earning a living, or he or she would have to have the talent and good fortune to be taken under the wing of a sponsor: that is, a wealthy person who wanted to support literature as an art form and to see the particular writer succeed.

Now, the tradition of sponsorship in the arts has greatly changed and is nearly non-existent. (An "artist" may come into a year or two of financial assistance in the form of a grant from an institution, but no longer will a wealthier person pay all living expenses for years on end.)  Most writers must burn the midnight oil, working around kids, family obligations, and a 9-to-5 job. Writing is an enormous time commitment; and it is often a financial sacrifice as well.

But beyond the obvious concerns of having the practical means to write, what makes a writer? What makes a really good book?  Let me stop here and say directly to the reader that I don't presume myself to have achieved any sort of pinnacle in terms of these questions: but I do know a good book when I see one. As a reviewer, editor and writer, I am constantly turning over the questions in my mind around what really great writing looks like. It interests me as a writer wishing to better myself, and as a person interested in the continual advancement of literature as an art form worth respecting.

What is the difference between, say, Mary Had a Little Lamb and Beethoven?  Is one - in the grand picture of human endeavor - more valuable or important than the other to civilization?  What is the difference between the latest radio hit and a timeless folksong?  Is one more deserving than the other?  Is Dr. Suess as valuable to the world of literature as is Dickens?

One may define success of a song or a painting or a book in terms of financial success. But I believe that would be misleading: the market evolves and changes and often has little to do with promoting quality. One may define success in terms of length of life: a hit song may be forgotten within months, but a classical symphony is played three hundred years after its debut.  Has the symphony necessarily brought more joy than has the hit song?

Both of the quotes at the beginning of this article speak to the quality of literature, and to the differences in quality amongst books. In the modern world, there are many writers who write books that give readers entertainment - and this is always a worthy pursuit. Those who do it best, and do it consistently, make some money. A precious few like Dean Koonz know how to write a quality book and make it entertaining to the masses as well; their books have tapped into a social psyche nerve - they speak a language that hundreds of thousands understand.

And so a book need not be a quality book in order to succeed financially or in terms of popularity. But the term "literary fiction" still implies a work that is of high quality, and I believe that it is a concept worth protecting and preserving, primarily because the most innovation happens in the highest quality of literature, and also because the highest art elicits the most revelatory emotion from the viewer/reader. It celebrates the human spirit in the truest sense.

What is real quality in terms of a book?  I believe that at its highest form literature contains the following elements:

- It uses language in an innovative way, and it strives for beauty. This may occur in the form of inspiring and original metaphors, it may be that the prose reads with the music and rhythm of poetry. But in this highest form of literature, language is presented in a way that celebrates language for its own sake.

- It offers innovation. This may be in terms of theme, message, or use of language. Innovation moves the art form forward, raises the bar, challenges future writers.

- It honors literary forms and techniques that have survived the test of time. It may borrow from the greatest of works in terms of theme and structure. It nods to the most moving literature of our past.

- It offers a structure that pulls the reader in, that best and most profoundly conveys a message.

- It contains not only a story message, but a universal message about mankind. It causes the reader to consider his or her own life, values and ideas. This message may be dark, or light.

- It is sophisticated in the sense that it presents a writer that understands the basics of literary form and structure.

- It flies in the face of rules of genre; it shows no boundaries - the story and message is all-important.

Each of us, as professional writers, has to determine what sort of book we will write, and consequently what sort of writer we will be. Some of us want to entertain the masses, some of us want to entertain a few and do it well. A few of us aren't as concerned with selling books or with entertaining as we are with saying something that needs to be said. A few of us write because we love language - we love its music, we love innovative use of words, we love the artistry of it, we fight to find and present beauty in it.  This last category is the type of writer that found a sponsor 150 years ago, the type of writer whose book might be read and reread 150 years from now.

I believe that there is room in the world - and certainly in the market - for all types of writers. I don't agree with Mr. Koonz: the literary novel is alive and well. It is all over Amazon if one searches. Beautiful language is still invented, and still appreciated, even if it sells less to a population that is suffering from having been educated more about computers and economics than about language.

Each of us decides what we will be, what we will sacrifice, what we will embrace. In my own field, there is a difference between M/M romance, and literary fiction with a gay theme. One is based upon a basic formula: a gay couple finds one another, has a conflict, resolves the conflict through much angst, and ends up together. Ninety-nine percent of M/M books follow this formula, and when they don't readers get very testy.  These novels vary in quality of writing; some are written in very simplistic language with no innovation in language at all. However they are entertaining and the authors are laughing all the way to the bank as they deposit the royalty check. Do these books advance literature? No. Do they convey some important, soul-enlightning universal message? Never. Do they entertain? Sometimes. Will they be remembered in thirty years? Not likely.

Gay literary fiction seeks to do a bit more. These books rarely follow a pattern - the story might go anywhere. A happy ending is not necessary, and often forcing such an ending would ruin the book. These books present universal, timeless themes, and seek to convey a message about the state of humanity. They are not for the weak of heart, but they are for those who love language and literature for its own sake, and for those who like to learn something about life when they read.  Do these books make money? Rarely. Will they be remembered? Maybe. Do they contribute to the advancement and respect of the art of literature? Hopefully. . . Yes, often they do.

I have chosen to write literary fiction. As a writer of this type of book, I have endured the angry emails of readers who were incensed to have been denied a happy ending. Never mind that they just might have been forced to think, to feel something scary. That they might have been changed, or have experienced a moment of painful psychological growth. In a society where our schools have failed to teach the value of sophisticated literature, people get pissed off when a  book demands too much of them.

I have learned the lesson well: if I insist upon writing this type of book, I will get angry emails. They hurt: a letter that complains about a work of literary fiction is a letter that criticizes the writer's life philosophy, that condemns the writer's view of life. It is a very personal thing. One doesn't just write such a book; one bleeds such a book. One births such a book.

And I have learned that I will get beautiful fan letters as well. Personally, I would rather be told that my book had pissed off, but then moved, and finally changed a person, than that my book entertained him or her for a few hours.

But that is the choice I have made. I wish to stand with those who try to state something about the world in which we live. I am not interested in providing fodder for a happy day - I am interested in forcing thought, pulling forth hard emotions, demanding answers. I want to find my way into the music and make my words sing for a reader. I strive to write something enduring. And I am learning to live with the darker consequences.

***

Want to get pissed off, moved, and perhaps elated?  Read "Gentlemen's Game" by Lichen Craig, available at Amazon, Barnes and Noble online - where you can order it for either Kindle or Nook - , and hard print here at this website. Or order it at your favorite bookstore.

Sex Scenes: How Much is Too Much?

Actually, the better question may be "How Much is Too Little?" I have noticed two interesting trends in gay fiction and I imagine it holds true across mainstream fiction as well:

First, there is the trend toward separating well-written fiction with explicit sex scenes into its own category: "erotic". I imagine this began as a way to flag the reader that he/she was stumbling into some frisky ground. I understand that. At some times in my own life I have not wanted to have to stand in someone's bedroom in the middle of a scene: it felt invasive. I was embarrassed. For me and for them. A warning is understandable. But my concern is that in our zeal to pass on a polite warning we have relegated some high quality fiction to a seamy back room.

The second trend I notice is that in a well-written book or story where the reader would benefit from more detail in a sex scene, the writer shies away. At times, one can almost feel an author holding sex at arm's length - his or her own squeamishness getting in the way of the integrity of the story. If you think about it, sex is part of human experience. It is such a deep part - and a necessary one - that how can one hope to paint a true picture of human experience without exploring a character's sexual viewpoint?

I just recently read a really amazing novel, full of truly beautiful language, imagery, characterization - everything a great book needs and a great writer boasts. But where a sex scene should have been was a paragraph of euphemisms and a hasty retreat to the following morning. The thing is, this scene was pivotal, and what happened in that bed mattered. Details mattered. It mattered to the state of mind of the main character, because that event changed his life. If the author had been courageous enough to add more detail, the scene could have been spun into a haunting one that would have informed the story on a deeper level and enriched the entire novel. It was good enough as it stood, but could have been so much better because it could have made the novel better quality story-telling.

There is for most of us a difference between "erotica" and "porn". To me there is. It's quite simple: in pornography the explicit scene is about the sex, as is the whole piece. It is offered for the reader to revel in the detailed mechanics; it assumes that the reader isn't overly invested in the characterization or plot. In erotica/erotic fiction, the scene informs the story in the rest of the piece - the rest of the piece being of the same quality as any work of fiction worth its name. Porn examines the technical detail of the sex act; erotica examines the emotion, physicality, the story as a whole, with the details of a sex act being only one more layer of meaning amongst the many offered. Perhaps writers avoid writing sex scenes because they assume others will see them as writing pornography. Perhaps we as writers need to speak up more about the difference, and the merit of a good graphic sex scene.

I believe that we as a society, and therefore the literature that reflects our collective psyche, are evolving. I see a day when a writer won't think twice about including graphic sex in a story within the context of the story - as naturally as human sexuality occurs within the context of a life. Sexuality is so integral to our core, to omit it when it is part of our story, seems to me a real disservice to a good book.

Sex is Complicated, Even When You Write It

One of the highest compliments I receive is when a man - in particular a gay man - tells me the sex scenes are "hot" and realistic. Often I am asked how they come to be that way.

Let me first say that I enjoy writing them. Our sexual relationships reflect who we are at our core; what happens in the bedroom reflects our inner lives in and out of the bedroom. For that reason, when I am telling an emotional story about humans evolving I can't tell it without including that very important part of human experience. I can honestly say that, although my sex scenes are sometimes detailed, I have never written one solely to titillate: to me that puts one in the realm of pornography. Rather, I write them because they are integral to the story of a character's experience and evolution in the course of the book.

As to how a sex scene between men comes to be true to life, I have little explanation. I can tell you that I do research. I read - about fellatio from a man's point of view, about anal sex and gay men, about male experience. I have watched gay porn - but most of it is emotionless and stale. I read some gay porn; that sometimes gives me an idea or two. But after giving this some thought I have to say that the most important ingredient is that I envy men their sexual experience. I think that men take ownership over and enjoy their sexual experience far more - in general - than women do.

Part of the reason behind this is cultural: men are taught to be sexual and are considered healthy, normal and virile when they do. A woman who is overtly sexual is referred to negatively. Another reason is the inherent reality of pregnancy: sexual behavior is a two-edged sword for women - it almost never comes without physical and emotional risk.

But whatever the reasons, men behave differently than women, and as a writer I find that this has to come into play. I am a little surprised and disturbed by "gay romance" I have read where the roles of the two lovers are little different than that of heterosexual lovers in a Harlequin romance: the formula is the same, and one of them plays a decidedly submissive (translate: feminine) role. I don't find this realistic - and if the author of such a book has as her/his goal mere fantasy and entertainment that is fine. For me personally though, I always grapple with the feeling that I want to treat the community about which I am writing respectfully, and to that end I try to get inside men's heads as much as I can. The ability of men - heterosexual or homosexual - to grab sex by the horns, to behave as if lust and enjoyment are their birthright, is amazing and enviable to me.

The sheer unapologetic joy with which men seem to approach sex is inspiring to me. I believe that when writing a sex scene, I start from that joy and sense of entitlement, and write the scene around it. So far, it seems to be working.

Weighing Reader Sensibilities: "This Book Made Me So Mad!"

One way books get noticed by readers is at websites such as LibraryThing.com and GoodReads.com. These are non-commercial sites that function as social networking places for those who love books. Users exchange recommendations and reviews, and hold discussion about their favorite reads. The very nature of this type of site invites the formation of cliques.

Recently, I was cautioned that a specific group of people on one of these sites "don't like infidelity, menage, or anything like that". Over several days, I came to understand what that meant: this group likes a sweet little M/M romance, wrapped up in a neat bow, with no real drama, no real-life questions or struggles - at least not the type that are uncomfortable and for which there are no easy answers. And I don't want to knock these types of books. Heaven knows readers need a respite from the seriousness of their daily lives. But the attitude inherent in this clique discourages books that deal with heavier subject matter, and worse, the group dynamic discourages members from exploring such titles.

What is the job of a writer? First, perhaps it is to entertain. If the book isn't entertaining no one is going to be reading it. Beyond that though, it gets more complex. Sometimes the job of the writer is to offer escapism. Sometimes - maybe at the other end of the spectrum of reading experiences - the job of the writer is to challenge the reader to think. I personally think the best books accomplish both. What about a book that makes the reader uncomfortable? What about characters that do things the reader finds reprehensible?

I think that a book full of nasty characters is not entertaining. Not for me. Similarly, a book that offers a main character that is unattractive from an ethical or moral standpoint, is difficult to stick with. But what about the character who is pleasing, and commits a heinous act? Do we do away with the book?

Life is messy. Good people do things they shouldn't to one another. Sometimes they are forgiven. Sometimes not. There is a lot of gray area in real life; the black and white we find in fictional stories is not often realistic. As a writer, one has to decide whether a book is going to

- offer simple mindless escapism. This is not an unworthy goal. Bringing a little escape to a weary reader is always worthwhile.

- challenge attitudes and beliefs. If a writer chooses this path, one has to be prepared for some fallout: an angry reviewer here and there, people who just can't swallow the details of the story enough to bring themselves to a place of contemplation.

- do both. This is tricky. Because in order to do both you have to challenge in a very quiet way; you have to avoid interrupting the peace of escapism while subtly raising some questions in the reader's mind.

Again, I think the best books (and their authors) accomplish both. I am still working on it.

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!

What a Week!

My life as a novelist begins with a bang. Great comments and reviews, boost in sales in the first week. This all makes ones heart beat faster, the world seem a bit brighter. Then there are other comments - the book made a few readers angry (although both claimed to like it in the end), some have issues with the morality - not of the author, mind you, but of the characters. This is like a roller coaster ride. The trick is to keep your heart out of it and your focus on the original message.

It certainly does make me think: what constitutes a "good" book? What does "good" mean? Certainly there are technical aspects - language use, plot, characterization, pacing, flow. But beyond that, when we have the technical stuff down and we are just talking about reader experience, what makes up "good"?

I have to wonder if a book that 1)makes someone rethink life and morality and love, and 2) makes one ask questions they are reluctant to ask of themselves, and 3) haunts the reader afterward - is a success in the end. I wonder if a "good" book doesn't have to make the reader happy in order to leave them satisfied.

Perhaps that satisfaction comes hours, or weeks or months after reading. Maybe it doesn't come until there has been time to digest and perhaps reread. Maybe stirring up emotion in a reader no matter what those emotions are, and causing him or her to think in a new way, is in the end success?