The Pecman

I don't agree with that. First, I don't think anybody cares about that except the author. Secondly, it doesn't make the story better, more interesting, or enhance any detail. I don't have a problem with the author adding an Afterword, then ending it with his or her name or initials, and the place and date on which the it was written. I've followed that idea because it was used by many authors (among them Stephen King, Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, and many others). I think it's classy and tasteful, and says just enough without saying too much. The stories that really annoy me are the ones that end with "X number of words, started X time and date, ended Y time and date," as if it were some kind of lame English compositional assignment. Silly. Just tell the damned story, and then add a note or two at the end if you want.

I think people are overreacting to the DRM crap. If you don't want to suffer from the problems of Digital Rights Management, don't buy audio, video, or computer software online. There will always be a way to rip, copy, or otherwise duplicate any audio or video signal, as long as hackers can breathe. The two best things I can say about Vista are: 1) it's more secure than XP, and 2) it looks nicer than XP. Both those two things are good. The rest of it is not going to affect most people, particularly business users. You wanna see bad DRM, take a look at the Zune. Yeeeesh... I'll take a regular iPod any day over that piece o' dirt.

Yeah, I agree that "The End" is a little cheesy. I can't recall ever seeing it done in a major published novel. I do two things: I put a bullet ? at the end of the final sentence, and then I add an Afterword to thank people who helped with the story, provide some references, and I toss in some extra copyright notices of anything quoted in the story. I figure, people will know that's it, case closed, game over, done deal. Pieces of Destiny may wind up having a lot of historical references cited, just because of the research I've had to do to write it. It'll probably bore people if I include them all, but I'll certainly put in the top ten.

They gave up on this concept many years ago. Noted U.S. film critic Roger Ebert even wrote some newspaper columns about it, championing the idea as a way to increase sharpness and clarity in current films. But the idea never caught on. What is catching on is 3-perf 35mm negative, which is used for all major U.S. dramatic TV shows (like Lost and Heroes), because the aspect ratio is ideally suited for HDTV. There's also no waste, so virtually every pixel of the negative gets used for actual photography. But the film still goes at 24fps. I've worked on several fine Australian films over the years, including Gallipoli (in the early 1980s) and many others I can't even remember. They all used Kodak film. My point was that there is no vast conspiracy out there trying to keep the cost of film out of reach for low-budgeted users. Everybody more or less pays the same price (though you obviously get a discount if you buy, say, 1,000,000 feet vs. 50,000 feet). And the cost of negative has not come down per se. Budgets have skyrocketed, so it's true that film is now a lower part of the budget, by percentage, than ever before.

I agree with some of what you say, but not this. I recently worked for Kodak for two years, and what you say is just not true. Kodak never made a ton of money on film negative. They make a ton of money on the Prints. True, 35mm negative ain't cheap, but there were several competing firms in the 1960s and 1970s, and Fuji is still around and doing well. Fuji negative is about 15% cheaper than Kodak's, but that's not an enormous difference. It's fair to say that professional-grade production gear is expensive mainly because it's manufactured in such small quantities. It's not a question of trying to discourage non-studio use; it's that you can't make a lot of money selling 500 cameras or X thousand feet of negative a year to a relatively small group of buyers. Digital production has not forced Kodak to lower its prices. If anything, 35mm negative is more expensive now than it's ever been, and so is processing. Kodak has also improved its negative to the point where there's little difference in lighting requirements between HD and, say, 500 ASA film. But many TV shows have discovered that shooting digitally does not yield the gigantic cost reductions they were hoping for. The reality is that the biggest costs for TV and features are the above-the-line expenses (actors, writers, directors, producers, etc.). Film costs diddly-squat. As one example, Michael Mann shot Miami Vice on HDCam instead of film. It was a $120 million film; they saved about $700,000 on film stock, roughly .5% of the budget. The movie still bombed, big-time. What is happening nowadays is that the studios are using a hybrid of film and digital techniques to make most big-budgeted films. Film is still the preferred format for origination, but once it's shot, everything goes digital from that point forward. You can't beat the reliability and picture quality of film. End of soapbox.

Yeah, I got a couple of emails from people who kind of chided me, saying, "hey, the 2006 kid is kind of being patronizing to the 1864 people." This is 100% intentional. Jason has a lot of lessons to learn, and Travis will be one of them. Travis knows a lot more than he lets on. I have a bad habit in my own life of judging people, and I recognized it some years back and have tried ever since to try to stop it. Prejudice can pop up in ugly ways -- racial, sexual, social, even economical -- and it's easy to have a superior attitude over people you erroneously assume are beneath you. That's one of my points of the story: that we can all learn from each other, not only in spite of our differences but often *because* of them. I hope this message will be subtle, but we'll see how many people pick up on it.

I'll occasionally cross my toes myself, as a silly habit, so I figured, "aaaa, what the hell, I'll throw that into the story." Lotta strange stuff coming up in Chapter 3. Definitely more drama, but I'm trying to ease the comedy in as much as the story will permit.

I'm reminded of the old joke, where two guys are together in an office. One says, "Who should I send this to?" The second guy says, "You should never end a sentence with a preposition." And the first guy says, "who should I send this to, a@@hole?"

Second chapter is now up: http://www.awesomedude.com/pecman/pieces_o..._destiny_02.htm

And for those who were waiting, there are now officially-sanctioned publicity photos of Daniel Radcliffe on stage for his new 2007 London play, Equus, at this link. The pictures are rated PG-13, so they're not quite naked, but close to it. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) This role is probably the furthest thing from Harry Potter that Radcliffe could get.

I totally agree. Dumbledore will be back in some form in the new book -- I'd bet your house on it. And I still say we haven't seen the end of Sirius Black, either.

Oooops -- my bad. (This is what I get for trying to be coherent at 3AM.) I missed the word "only" in your post. It's astonishing the number of Potter fans who are convinced that Dumbledore is really dead. I'd bet the farm that he'll be back, very similar to what happened to Gandalf in Lord of the Rings. I'm curious if Harry will return to Hogwarts, though. The end of book 6 gives the impression that he's going to just drop out and devote 100% of his time to hunting down and killing Voldemort, which would make it a very, very different story than anything that's come before this. I still mull over what Jo Rowling said in a BBC interview some years back, when they asked her, "do you plan to write a new series of books about Harry Potter as an adult?" She laughed and said, "well, you're assuming he's going to live." She wouldn't go any further than that. Man, if she has the cojones to do that, I'd be totally knocked out. That's never happened in the history of modern literature (except possible for Conan Doyle trying to kill off Sherlock Holmes), but it'd be a helluva gutsy move. You figure, she's got a billion dollars... she can do anything she wants!

Hi, Nick, and welcome! Good to see you here. I totally agree with you on the need to get all the factual details right. I've read at least four or five online gay novels that had scenes set in LA, and I was appalled at the misconceptions most people have of the city. As one example (and I don't mean to single him out), Josh and I had several discussions on the Southern California scenes during The Least of These. I jumped up and down when he had one chapter where the two teenagers drive from Anaheim to Hollywood, have a meal, explore the tourist sights, and drive back in a couple of hours. Uh-uh. LA travel times are much worse in real life, even during the early 1980s (when Josh's story takes place). But then, they violate reality all the time on the TV series 24, and that's the #1 top-rated Fox drama. So what do I know? Anyway, Nick, I've read your tips at least 10 times and recommended them to others many times. I wish more people would read your comments and at least think about them if and when they try their hand at writing a story. My hope is, if they're aware of the rules, they can figure out creative ways of working around them. P.S. Get your ass back to the keyboard and start writing! You're far too good a writer not to be working on your craft.

Done! $100 says you're wrong. **SPOILER** The clue to me that Dumbledore's really alive is that nobody got to examine his body. It's clear that it was all a ruse to have Snape appear to be a murderer, allowing him to rejoin the Death Eaters and get close to Voldemort. Others have noted that generally in the Potter novels, when somebody is dead, there's a body, and they stay dead (like . Rowling has stayed away from the problematic issue of "let's raise the dead with magic," for several moral and story-related reasons. If you have a clue, let's hear it. I think there will be major characters that won't make it through book 7, but not the major ones. Two predictions from me: 1) she's gonna kill off Hagrid, and 2) Neville Longbottom will be involved in the death of Voldemort. I'll make a side-bet with you on those two as well. (I won't bet on the Super Bowl, since I know zip about football, but HP I know and breathe.)

Alternate history is a strange area. I have a book that's been sitting on my coffee table that I've been meaning to read; the plot's about a Civil War situation where somehow, one group of soldiers managed to get about 100 modern M16 rifles from the future, and managed to completely change the outcome of the war. The idea is intriguing, but I have to confess, my eyes start to glaze over when authors start throwing around a lot of minutia in a historical novel. I think something like this would make a better Twilight Zone episode than an entire novel. Pieces of Destiny will flirt with changing history, but my plan is for it to be a romantic adventure before anything else. The history will only be a backdrop to what happens, though a few historical characters will be making cameos before too long. I should have Chapter 2 up in just a couple of days (before Feb. 1).

I think Nick suffered from the same kind of thing that affects everybody from time to time. Hell, I was so down for the last couple of years, I wrote very little after Jagged Angel. But I was also sidetracked by several unexpected career moves and issues. It was all I could do to just get through the day, let alone write (or, god forbid, run a website). Nick is answering email, so you can contact him through his website. He told me he is writing again, and hopefully he can get back to doing what he does best.

Jo Rowling hasn't directly commented on this (to my knowledge), but she has said before that teenage sexuality was not something she would deal with in the novels. Me personally, though, I'm still waiting for the photos from Daniel Radcliffe's new play, Equus. Several scenes feature the character running around on stage sans clothes, so that'd be, ah... a departure from his Harry Potter role. As for the new book: I'm gonna put in for a vacation from work for the week of July 7, so I can sit at home, curl up on the coach with one of my cats, and read the whole thing in one sitting, like I did the last one. (I'll make anybody a $100 bet that Dumbledore and Uncle Sirius are still alive.)

It depends on the country, because copyright law is often different in different countries. It's a very complicated subject, and there's a good discussion on Wikipedia here. I know in the U.S., there's an "implied" copyright for anything created by a writer or artist. Technically, you don't have to file a copyright application with the government office, because you still have certain rights and protections, but if somebody did rip you off, you'd have a better case in court if you had an actual copyright certificate (which is very inexpensive, like $25 or so in the U.S.). I believe your real name need only be used on the copyright form, not on the published work per se. But the reality is, you don't have a lot of real protection on the net. Once something is out there, people have the ability to use it and copy it. You could spend a lifetime (and a lot of dough) trying to chase people violating your copyrights. Noted fantasy/SF author Harlan Ellison spent about $300,000 in legal fees chasing a guy who had scanned a half-dozen of his books and uploaded them as text files to various newsgroups. Harlan had a hard time understanding that much of the Net is "the wild and wooly west," and a lot of the net is what I call "vaguely organized chaos," so there's no one person to sue. He did eventually track down the original poster, and got him to stop, but it was kind of a pyrrhic victory at that point. To get back to your original point: I think whether or not to use your real name is a personal choice. I can see both sides of it, but I figure, there's a lot of wacky people out there on the net, and maybe it's not a great idea to use your real name with anything controversial (like erotic fiction), because you never know who might want to find out where you are and hassle you. I've had a few spooky encounters with fans in email, even a few near-stalkers, and I'm glad they only knew me by my handle.

Hey, now THAT I'll read! I still say you can break many of the rules provided the story is entertaining, the characters are believable, and you keep the reader surprised and make them want to keep reading. (OK, except for the really lame ones like the alarm clock, the "let me introduce myself" intro, and the change in point of view. Those three things will generally make me lurch away from the story immediately.)

I sympathieze with you very much, James. As a writer, you have to be sensitive to the way people speak, the subtleties and nuances in their actions, and observe life a lot closer than most people. That sensitivity also opens you up to the potential of being hurt. Writing fiction does make you very vulnerable, because you're putting your heart on the page (or, maybe more accurately, your brain on the page). When people criticize it, they may seem to be criticizing the very core of what makes you you. For this reason, writing requires some degree of bravery, as well as having confidence in what you're doing. And to echo Cole: some of the best writers who ever lived came out of horribly depressing lives, miserable childhoods, abject poverty, among all kinds of trials and tribulations. Maybe it's because of their trauma that they were able to write as well as they did. As rock critic/writer Lester Bangs advised the fledgling Cameron Crowe in Almost Famous: (paraphrasing) "The cool people in the world don't create great art. It's the uncool people, guys like you and me who are trying to get laid, who create the art out of despair and desperation." So great writing can come out of a terrible tragedy, an awful trauma, or a painful memory. But I agree with what Trab says above. Use the writing as a catharsis to exorcise the demons. Don't worry about what's happened in the past; get on with your life and concentrate on the good things you have. Maybe by writing the story, you can move past the experience. And nobody ever has to know how much of the story was true, and how much is complete fiction. Don't feel the need to tell exactly what happened; put a dramatic spin on it that makes it a better story. I will try to take time this weekend to read Broken, and I look forward to it. My advice would be, don't hold back: get the whole thing out of your system, and keep moving forward. (Jesus, do I sound like Paula Abdul or what?) Sincerely, hang in there.

Hey, you remembered that! That's very close to what Ken Grimwood did in Replay. He had the main time-travelling character go back to around 1972 or so, and he meets another time-travelling character (a woman) who's become the most successful film producer in history. She had hired a young George Lucas to supervise the effects (which is not technically correct, but it's a historical quibble), and a fledgling Steven Spielberg to direct, and created the greatest science fiction film in history... years before Star Wars or Close Encounters came out in our world. My personal favorite scene was when the time-traveller got Lee Harvey Oswald arrested a few days before Kennedy was assassinated... but JFK still got killed on November 22nd, 1963, but by a different assassin. Ken's theory was that some small events are probably changeable in time travel, but the major, cataclismic moments in history are probably not. I tend to lean to this as well. Ken was a terrific guy, and a die hard video collector and film fan, which is how I got to know him. I wish that Replay had been made into a movie, because it was a terrific idea. The 1993 movie Groundhog Day owed a lot to Replay, since the latter was also about a man doomed to repeat sections of his life over and over again, but the difference with the latter was that the guy went back in time and inhabited his own (younger) body... but with all his memories of the future left intact. An absolutely terrific, highly original idea. Sadly, Ken was working on a sequel to Replay when he died. He had moved away from LA after 1988 (the last time I saw him), and we had lost touch over the years. But I knew him very well during the late 1970s and 1980s, and I miss him very much.

Yeah, I agree with you. This kind of thing is rare done well, particularly with gay fiction. There's only a couple more SF elements that will come up in future chapters, so it's not really a significant issue. As I said in the intro, I read at least 20 time-travel novels in preparation for this, and I was determined to go off in a different direction than all of them. Destiny is probably more a historical novel than anything else, but those are usually pretty snooty. My take on it is, because you see the entire adventure through the eyes of a modern character, it'll be a lot more accessible to most readers. But I'm not taking the easy route here. It'll take some time for things to unfold. I'm actually itching to get back to writing it. We'll see if I can tweak Chapter 2 to my satisfaction this weekend.

After many months (more like years) of false starts and missteps, I've finally started working on my new novel, Pieces of Destiny. As I explain in the intro, this story is a departure from my previous two novels. The lead character is very different from anybody I've written about before, and the story has some science-fiction overtones that I think make it fairly unique. Don't let the historical subject matter or SF overtones throw you. This is more a story about romance and adventure than it is a history lesson (with some sex coming up in future chapters). I'm planning for it to be much more upbeat and breezy than Jagged Angel, but there will be some twists and turns along the way. I'm still crushed with work, but I'll try to get a chapter out every few weeks. Hang in there, because this story will take some time to tell.

Now, as a counterpoint, let me point out (with some embarrassment) about the number of times I've violated Nick's above rules. My novel Groovy Kind of Love was set in Florida, but that's because it's where I grew up, and it was partly autobiographical. Jagged Angel was set in California, partly because that's where I live now. I think the old adage "write what you know" also applies to "write where you know." On the other hand, I stirred in many real-life details -- street names, buildings, landmarks -- that all justified the locations. As to oversized body parts: one of the reasons I wrote Groovy was to break this stereotype, and show a kid who was somewhat overendowed, but was occasionally ashamed by it. I think some of Nick's rules can work as starting points, especially if you spin them around 180 degrees, completely avoiding the clich?. Guilty as charged on the "athlete falls in love with the nerd," in Groovy. But this was based on events that actually happened to me in real life, so I think it's justified. I also at least put the nerd on the swim team (which was true in my case), so I can wince and let it go. I say, if you have to put two completely different characters together, particularly with teenage characters who have very little in common physically, find a way to make it work that isn't too unbelievable. I had a very wealthy lead character in Angel, but that was done partly to dramatize what would happen if a kid like this were faced with losing everything he had (even driving his parents into bankruptcy), through an act of fate. And though the kid had money and a hot sports car, he occasionally got into fights with a friend about it, and had to deal with people who resented his wealth. I thought the issue of the family's income and status was covered in a realistic way, and the upscale neighborhood described is only about a mile away from where I live. The character names I've chosen have always had a special personal meaning to me. I didn't just pluck cool-sounding names out of the air; I knew these people personally (in some cases, intimately), and thought it'd be nice to remember them as characters. One suggestion I would make: when you come up with character names, make them as different as possible from each other. I think I read a story not long ago with characters named Taylor, Trevor, and Tyler, and it drove me nuts trying to figure out who was who. Next time, try "Taylor," "Jack," and "Johnny." Or go with one character who has a one-syllable name, and another with a two-syllable name. Make 'em different and memorable! On the "moving is traumatic" issue: that was a minor element of the opening of Angel, but I used it as a reason to explain why the lead character was able to completely change himself after suffering a trauma back in his old town. I used it to introduce the situation, explaining how a nerdy shrimpy kid could transform into a muscular jock in three years, and I didn't dwell on it, so to me, it was justified. (I also dealt with the reality of steroid use, which is a very real issue for today's high school athletes.) So you can see, I think it's possible to bend some of Nick's rules a teensy bit, provided you do everything you can to avoid the stereotype, and surprise the reader. Keep the story moving, make the characters believable, and do it in an entertaining way.

My pal Nick Archer just forwarded to me his latest version of this piece, which I think is both humorous and informative. Any of you who are writers out there will undoubtedly find it useful. Be warned that Nick pulls no punches, but bear in mind this is just one man's opinion (though I personally agree with 99% of what he says -- despite the fact that I've personally violated two or three of his rules myself!). Jumping The Shark in Gay Fiction By Nick Archer There?s a fun website devoted to television called Jump the Shark. They describe their mission as ?It?s a moment... a defining moment when you know that your favorite television show has reached it?s peak. That instant that you know from now on?..it?s all downhill. We call that moment Jumping the Shark.? I?ve spent many hours laughing along with the amusing comments on the message boards. And then I thought to adapt the concept to gay fiction. Jumping the Shark in Gay Fiction is a story element that is so overused it?s predictable. You can see what?s coming a country mile away. Or it?s a common mistake that amateur writers use. JTS in gay fiction is that moment or plot element that stretches our believability to the limit. Or it?s the story element that is so over-used that it?s a clich?. After that, it?s all downhill?.assuming there was a climax in the first place. Don?t take the list personally; all of us have used at least one of these in our stories. ? The ?Personal Ad? Self-Description: ?Me? I?m 6?1?, 175 lbs., blond hair, blue eyes, 8? uncut cock, and I have a 6-pack from doing 3000 sit-ups a day?.? Also known as: But First, Let Me Introduce Myself? ? The Collision: Our hero collides with a potential love interest in a crowded high school hallway or college quad. ? Dead Parents: It?s soooo convenient not to have parents ? therefore avoiding coming out to them. Not to mention that you can skip school, use the car whenever you want, forget homework and no curfew! Writing about an orphan has made JK Rowling incredibly rich, but she is a professional. Don?t do it. ? Location, Location, Location: Stories are always located in sunny California or Florida with sex scenes on the beach. Ever get sand up your ass? It may come as a shock to some authors that gay people also live in areas where the snow flies. If you actually live in Tampa or San Diego, that?s fine. But if you live in Kenosha, Kalamazoo or Kankakee quit writing about where you wish you lived. Write what you know. ? Oversized Body Parts: Penises seem to gain at least two inches in every story on the Net. Do we really need to know the length, thickness and circumcision status of everyone?s dick? ? Richie Rich: This clich? often accompanies Dead Parents. The Parents die, leaving our Hero with gazillions. Or they have a perfect job from which they can take endless time off and still earn millions a year. Or they win the lottery. If the main characters are teenagers, they never seem to have jobs. And how many college students today have the luxury of not working? ? Let?s Sit Around and Talk About Our Feelings: C?mon guys! This isn?t a sensitivity seminar or a conscience-raising session! These are horny, red-blooded guys! They?re only going to do enough talking to get into the other guy?s pants. After they?ve lit a cigarette and are staring at the ceiling, they might get around to talking about their emotions. An extension: People seldom sit around and talk about anything, unless it?s with a paid mental health professional. Usually they wait until they?re in the drive-thru at McDonald?s or washing the dog or raking the yard to reveal to their partner of 11 years that they?ve been boinking the poolboy. ? The Names-We-Wish-We-Had. Our parents gave us boring names ? like David and John ? so we?ll give our characters the names we wish our parents had named us. Justin. Tyler. Trevor. Cody. Brad and Chad. Brice or Bryce. Roland. Tobias (Tobi for short.) Precious names -- names that are cute for a 3-year-old little boy but awkward for anyone older -- like Casey or Corey. Biblical names like Isaiah, Noah or Jonah. Names that are derived from professions (and are very popular among the Southern landed gentry) like Hunter, Trapper, Carter or Tanner. Common names with cutesy spellings like Taylar, Brien, Khile. Stop it! ? I?m Not Gay But My Boyfriend Is: ?I?m straight, but I couldn't help but notice the other guy?s six-pack under his tight Tommy Hilfiger shirt, bubble butt and 8.7 inch cock showing through his Fubu jeans.? Yeah, you?re straight, all right, until the third paragraph when you fall to your knees faster than a Catholic at Sunday Mass. ? Sports Hero Falls For Geek/Nerd/Outcast: Maybe it?s one of our common fantasies ? we?ve all jacked off with the image of the Sports Hero in our minds. Use the Sports Hero once, to get it out of your system, and then lay this clich? to rest for good. ? Moving is Traumatic: Moving may well be traumatic because it represents a loss of control over our lives (especially for teenagers). But let?s give this overused plot element a rest! Enough already! ? Dialogue #1: Say What? Dialogue that sounds like it was translated from Mongolian to English by a computer: ?Do you really deem me diligent because I persisted in my attempts to insert my penis into your rectum? Your compliments are more than necessary, I?m sure. Your words are not untruthful, but they do border on hyperbole.? 12-year-old main characters that have the verbal ability of college graduates. Do not make your story into an opportunity to showcase your vocabulary skills. ? Dialogue #2: Valley Boys: ?Like c?mon, duuuuude, I just moved to California. That board is totally rad! Bitchin? Like, I?m so sure.? In other words, dialogue that makes it obvious that the writer is a middle-aged man trying to write like he was a teenager again. ? Dialogue #3: ?Gee, Mister that?s Swell.? Be extremely careful about slang and idioms. They?re going to date your story faster than a tweaking hustler in need of a fix. Include a few slang phrases to set the time frame of your story but be aware that the only English slang word to stand the test of time and is understood by all generations, cultures and classes is ?cool.? And nobody ? absolutely nobody ? says ?Gee? anymore. ? Superheroes: These are main characters without any flaws. They are perfect in every way. They?re beautiful, rich, intelligent, well hung, and fashionable and have a wonderful sense of humor. They would never get zits or an STD, or file bankruptcy, or lose their temper or ? God forbid ? fart. Leave the Superheroes for the comic books. ? Smilies: Never, never, never, never use smilies. Your job as an author is to paint a word-picture of your characters, plot and settings. Any interaction between yourself (the writer) and the reader should be done through words, not through icons. An addendum: never use phrases or acronyms you might use in a chat room; such as hehehehe or BTW. ? The Alarm Clock: Please, please don?t start your story with a ringing alarm clock. We all hate to get up in the morning, and everyone hates the sound of the damn thing. Why remind us? A postscript to this is the doorbell. The only time you should write about the ringing doorbell is when the Avon Lady arrives. A post-postscript: Nix the ringing school bell. Besides, few schools use actual bells anymore. Most use an annoying tone or beep over the intercom system. ? Switching Narrators: If you feel the need to describe the thought processes and/or feelings of more than one character, I?ve got two words for you: third person! In third person you can describe the thoughts and feelings of ALL your characters if you are so inclined. What a concept! ? The ?Phyllis? Syndrome: The Mary Tyler Moore Show had two major spinoffs; Rhoda and Phyllis. Rhoda was successful because Rhoda Morgenstern was a likeable character and she was funny. She was everyone?s favorite next-door neighbor. Phyllis was not successful because the Phyllis character was basically unlikable - selfish, pretentious and boorish. The point is - be very, very careful if you make your main character unlikable. It's a sure way to alienate readers. If you insist on having a selfish, rude, ignorant, insufferable, stupid individual as your main character, at least give him some redeeming characteristic. ? Is It Live or Memorex? All good fiction has elements of truth to it. And good autobiographies have elements of fiction to them. But make up your freaking mind! Are you writing fiction or an autobiography? If you?re writing fiction you have permission, no, you MUST stray from the facts. Not only to protect your ass from lawsuits but in order to make it fiction. If you absolutely can?t do it, if it?s too difficult for you to allow yourself to fictionalize your memories, then for God?s sake, label your story an autobiography and get on with it! ? Onions Always Make Me Cry: The major characters shed more tears than if they were slicing an onion. Most men, gay or straight, really don?t cry that often. Our brains are wired differently and hormones play a big part, too. It takes a lot to make a man cry. It shouldn?t happen on every page or even in every chapter. Save the crying scene for the climax of the story. Either that or get a Veg-O-Matic! It slices, it dices, it chops! Onions sliced so fast, you won't have time to cry! (Old Curmudgeon?s Note: I always get at least one email saying something to the effect: ?I cry all the time. It makes me feel better.? Well, good for you! You?re the minority. Notice I said most men. Now hand me that box of tissues.) ? That?s Some Bedside Manner: Delete the maudlin hospital scene. You know the one ? where the lover is crying (see above) over his comatose boyfriend. I?m serious. Do it right now! Highlight the scene and hit the delete button! I won?t be happy until you do. ? Who?re You Callin? Stupid and Lazy? You assume your reader is stupid and lazy if you: 1) Summarize the previous chapter at the beginning of the next chapter (The reader can re-read it for themselves) 2) Label your stories ?Series? (They can see it?s a series) or 3) Write The End at the end of your story (Unless you?re writing a screenplay or a story for young children, it should be obvious from your story that you?re done.) ? Details, Details, Details: Details are great. They give life to your story and involve your reader. But you can take it too far. Do we really need to know the playlist on your iPod? Does that conversation about whether to have lamb chops or pork ribs for dinner really need to be included? Does the reader really need to know the directions from your house to your favorite sex toy emporium? I?ll answer that question with a question: Does it further the action or help define a character? If not, delete it. It is possible to have too many details. ? Card-Carrying Member of PFLAG: Ever notice how parents, brothers and sisters, grandparents, uncles and aunts all accept the gayness of the main characters without any reservations? Does this happen in real life? It does with some, I?m sure. Let?s take a poll ? raise your hand if your relatives accepted you immediately when you came out. Hmmm. A minority. Thought so. ? ?Alex, I?ll Take Facts for $500?: This not a game show where you have a 50% chance of getting the right answer. BUZZZZ! Wrong answer! Do your research! If you are unfamiliar with a topic or your memory has been clouded by too many controlled substances, hop on the Internet and Google it! True, you are writing fiction but getting the facts straight can prevent you from making major errors and will just simply make your story better and more believable. Besides Google, try Mapquest or Wikipedia. If the information is not available on the Internet a short, polite email to a local library, chamber of commerce, tourism or travel bureau, professional association or historical society may do the trick. Tell them you?re a writer (because you ARE) doing research for a story. That?s what they?re there for. You?ll be pleasantly surprised at how helpful these people will be. Do not guess! (Ooo! Look at that! I Jumped the Shark! ) Those are my major pet peeves, but I?m sure they?re more out there. Any more? Email me at archerland@gmail.com . c) 2003, 2007 Nick Archer