The Pecman
-
Posts
3,544 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by The Pecman
-
-
Stories where the whole plot exists SOLELY because the character is gay are generally weak.
That's a tough call. The only writer I can think of off-hand who has written stories here where the fact that the characters are gay doesn't affect the story that much is David Buffet. Heck, he did a recent story awhile back set in a universe where gay and straight kids are accepted 100% -- obviously a fantasy world in the (hopefully not-too-distant) future.
But I don't think you can have a story with teenage gay characters where some element of the story doesn't involve the fear of discovery. I agree, the discovery element can't be the single most important part of the plot, but it is a pivotal element.
The first two novels I wrote did have these, even to the point where, in one story, a character accidentally killed another out of his fear of being outted at school. To me, this is natural conflict that comes out of the situation, yet it's not the central point of the story.
I do agree that it's great to have a story where there's a real solid story wrapped around the relationship. Too many gay stories -- particularly those on the Net -- are only about the relationship between the key characters, and there's no real plot beyond that. The story isn't "about" anything; it's just an episodic smorgasbord of what goes on in their daily lives, with no real point to what happens. The problem with this, to me, is that it's generally too boring and not dramatic enough. The bottom line is that the best gay stories are those where you could strip the gay element out and still have the essance of a good story left.
I'm about to start writing a new story where the fear-of-discovery won't be a vital plot element, only because there are other, more complex things going on. Like my first two novels, it's just an experiment to see what I can do in this framework. It'll have some action-adventure elements, along with some real romance, but also some violence and (I hope) unexpected developments. We'll see how it goes...
-
Pecman, please be a little more gentle when you have a criticism
Jeez, simmer down! I said I enjoyed reading the story, found it "refreshing," and in fact have recommended that it be added to the BEST OF NIFTY list. (So far, no luck, but I'm continuing to make my case.) I also congratulated the author in Email, which I do only rarely, when I find a story I really think stands out from the pack.
This is about as gentle as I can get. All my criticisms were done in a very even-handed, specific way -- nothing vague, I went right to the heart of where I think the story could be improved. Nothing more, nothing less.
To me, if a novel is four chapters in and I can't figure out what the plot is, there's a problem. Some people get away with this by calling what they do a "character study" or a "serial." But I think the novel form works better when there's an actual structure there, with a beginning, middle and end, and each chapter builds tension and sets up the ultimate climax of the story. There are writers who can write pure character and get away with it, but I think those are rare.
If you think my critiques are too harsh, I'm genuinely sorry. I'll be glad to bow out of any and all further discussions, if you think I'm causing more harm than good. Me personally, I choose my words very carefully; there's no insults intended there, and note that I'm talking only about words, not people.
-
I gotta say, I enjoyed the story, too. My only problem is that there's no real PLOT rearing its head yet, except for the conflict between the two or three characters. I also feel like the writer could've shown us more about WHY and HOW the characters fell in love, rather than just dealing with it in one paragraph, which was basically, "as the summer went on, they grew closer, etc.," which to me is leaving out a lot of story.
But yeah, the story was very refreshing compared to the usual crap I see on Nifty. Another good one that I recommend is The Confusion Sets In, which is here: http://nifty.nisusnet.com/nifty/gay/highsc...fusion-sets-in/.
Like Leaves & Lunatics, though, I miss having a real plot beyond just character exposition and conflict. To me, the story has to be ABOUT something, rather than just a series of episodic encounters. That having been said, both are entertaining and fairly well-written, as this stuff goes.
-
:I gather, then, that I should have my work edited before I even consider a publisher. Is this a fair assumption? If it is, what should I look for in an editor, and what should I expect of them?
My answers would be "yes, yes, and hard-to-say."
If you don't already have a publisher, a bona fide freelance literary editor will cost money -- typically several thousand dollars for a typical manuscript. A few I know of include:
http://editorialdepartment.net/
http://www.manuscriptediting.com/
Having a friend read your story to catch typos and problems with grammar are one thing, but they aren't going to necessarily catch or comment on dramatic flaws, structural issues, problems with internal logic, and so on. And to me, those are a lot harder to solve.
A good general book on fiction editing is this one:
Self-Editing for Fiction Writers:
How to Edit Yourself Into Print
by Renni Browne & Dave King
Paperback: 288 pages (2nd edition, 4/13/2004)
Publisher: HarperResource [iSBN: 0060545690]
I personally don't think a beginning writer can edit themselves, because they don't have the skills to pull it off and because they're "too close" to the story to look at it objectively. I also think that getting a second set of eyes (and another brain) to examine a story can be invaluable, simply because it forces you to look at your story from a totally different point of view. I say, if a portion of a story confuses or bothers a single reader, it might do the same for dozens of others, even if it's something you think is fine. So I think the book is useful just in terms of stopping you from making some brain-dead mistakes before they happen.
-
Why is it that many writers seem unwilling to tackle the "day to day" grinds of life within a Gay setting? Specifically, it is not often I see true form in writing about a group of entirely Gay teens or more so young adults and the conflict that arises between themselves as they struggle with life?
The reason for me is, number one, because the day-to-day grinds of life are boring. It's only the out-of-the-ordinary events -- accidents, fights, arguments, romance, passionate affairs, travel -- that are interesting. Nobody gives a crap about how a character studies, how long it took them to dress themselves, what bills they paid, what music they listened to on the way to work (or school), etc.
Number two, to center on a group of entirely gay teens is unrealistic, at least in the world I know. Gay people are still an enormous minority. (I for one don't buy the typical 10% estimate, which I think is much too high.) Sure, it's easier now to come out, even at the high school level, where kids can have clubs and social events and so on. But the only story I can think of where all the major teenage characters are gay, and yet the threat of being outed isn't a plot element, is David Buffet's CONTROL & CHAOS. But even Buffet admits in his intro that this was kind of an "alternate universe" scenario: a world where nobody cares at all who's gay, who's straight, and who's inbetween.
In the stuff I've written, I did deal with the day-to-day events, but only as a jumping off point for the action and conflict that follows. For example, I have a school dance in GROOVY -- typically a fairly predictable event -- but I threw in an unexpected sexual rendezvous as a twist. (A second dance has a much more violent, shocking twist.) I had a scene where the characters have to take a test in class, but one of them cheats, resulting in conflict and drama (with an eventual emotional payoff). I threw in numerous scenes that started out with one or more characters studying, but those were generally interrupted (for good reasons). But to me, to just dwell on mundane events isn't interesting, no matter how well it's written.
I also did something I don't see in a lot of gay teen stories: I made a strong effort to get the characters away from their houses and schools, and into different environments: everything from the beach to boats to movies, sports events, car trips, restaurants, and so on. I think too many writers forget all the possiblities of getting their characters out into the world. And I also covered the difficulties of finding the right places for -- shall we say -- romantic encounters. Speaking as a former kid myself, I keenly remember the problems of trying to avoid getting caught while fooling around. To me, it's details like this that help make the story real.
-
I believe Samuel Delaney is one of the more famous "out" SF authors. My personal favorite, though, is probably David Gerrold; his Man Who Folded Himself might be the greatest time-travel novel ever written, with fascinating (and sometimes hilarious) gay overtones.
David recently sold his book The Martian Child to New Line, who reportedly is going to turn it into a movie. The plot concerns a gay author who decides to become a single parent, but after adopting an 8 year-old son, begins to wonder if his child is human. Very funny book; deservedly won several prestigious awards.
And the last gay SF author I can think of is none other than Arthur C. Clarke, of 2001 fame. In interviews, Clarke has deflected questions as to his sexuality, but it's generally assumed he's not straight. Either way, he's a terrific writer, and has contributed some of the genuine classics to the field.
-
I have never read any critical comments... positive or negative on either Groovy Kind of Love or Jagged Angel, Pecman.
I refer to comments I've received in Email. As of late August, I've gotten about 3100 emails on Groovy, and about 1200 emails on Angel.
I'd say less than 10% were critical, but those that were sometimes had some good insights on some genuine issues -- either things I had overlooked, or subtle plot flaws that people flagged as being scenes they couldn't understand. Sometimes, they had just missed something from an earlier chapter, but other times, they had a genuinely good point to make. And yet even the critical letters stressed they liked the stories, which was gratifying.
I also make it a point to answer every Email I get. I figure even if it's just a quick boiler-plate reply, at least it thanks the reader for the message. Emails are about all the rewards we get.
-
Blue, I read the story on your recommendation. Unfortunately it turned me off on two points:
1) the guy starts off by having the character describe himself to the reader. I hate that.
2) nothing much happens in the first 3 chapters beyond just introducing the characters. To me, this is a total waste of time. Any good book on fiction writing tells you to grab the reader immediately with some action, as close to the first page as possible. Certainly, you should be done with character introductions after page 3 or 4, and just let the story unfold.
The writing's not horrible, but when I find myself saying, "don't bore us -- get to the chorus," I know something's wrong.
Just my opinion, your miles will vary, batteries not included.
-
What i would like to add is that when we see a character in one of these stories, we're seeing him through someone else's eyes.
That's not always true. The lead character in stories written in a 1st person point-of-view is going to be described very differently than they would be in 3rd person; it becomes a subjective experience, rather than an objective experience.
Point of view affects a lot of how the characters are described. It's a tough thing to get over, and I've succumbed to one of the most awful cliches you see in a lot of amateur fiction: scenes where one (or more) of the characters stands in front of a mirror and points out his flaws (or his own beauty). It's a lame cliche, but in both cases for me, I couldn't think of a better way to do it.
But at the same time, nothing is worse than reading those stories where the writer has the character talk to the reader and say, "Hi, I'm this old, I'm this tall, my eyes are this color, my hair looks like this, and people tell me I look like so-and-so." I'm like, shut up! Don't ever talk directly to the audience. Let other characters describe how the hero looks, and let us find out over time what this guy's appearance is.
I don't think it's as important as most people think it is for us to be able to precisely visualize the characters. I say, just give them the basic clues over time -- mention he's the shortest kid in class, or the tallest; mention that he hates his dark hair and is thinking of dying it blond; mention that he wears glasses -- briefly touch on these things over several chapters, as we slowly discover what the characters look like. No need to rattle off a laundry list of all their visual characteristics.
-
I think one of the greatest strengths and weaknesses (depending on your point of view) of the 'net is that anybody can post just about anything, if you find the right site.
I have no problem with that, AJ. It's just that flowery comments from readers won't make you a better writer; they'll just make you feel good about yourself.
Flattery is nice to get, but it's better when it's really deserved. I've actually learned more from criticism than I have from compliments. Several fellow writers (and a few fans) caught some pretty bad gaffes of mine in both Groovy and Jagged Angel, and without their critiques, I never would have noticed the problem, let alone been able to fix them.
Just having the means to publish your work and get it read by an audience is not enough. Knowing how to do it well is far more important. You can only learn that by endless practice, lots of reading, and tons of hard work. Making it up as you go doesn't work for most people. Granted, Dickens and Shakespeare didn't read any books on how to write, but they had the advantage of being born geniuses, a gift which none of us have.
-
One last bit of advice, Blue: The most important thing I had to get over was that I didn't have to change who I was to accept being gay.
I know that sounds weird, but I guess I couldn't reconcile the kinda guy I am with what I thought a gay person was "supposed" to be. Looking back (and remember this was like 1982 or so), maybe it seems lame and ridiculous, but it took me a long time to finally realize, just because the gay people I saw on TV shows and movies or encountered in life were one way, didn't mean I had to be exactly like that. Part of my problem was, the first couple of years I lived in LA, a friend of mine was a screaming over-the-top queen, and it took me awhile just to get past him.
But once I did, I was pretty secure in it, and I felt nothing but relief. I swear, I bet that most of the neuroses and fears and just plain nuttiness that most gay people suffer from was totally caused by their years in the closet. The sooner you can ease yourself out of it, the better off you'll be.
Good luck, dude, and hang in there.
--Pecman
-
Their ethnic backgrounds don't mean anything to their friends so I didn't want them to mean anything to the readers. Is this okay? Is is sufficient? I'm not sure although the Dude said he liked it that way. I know that it would matter to some readers, in real life anyway, and wanted to give them a chance to feel like it didn't , didn't matter...is that preachy or just real?
Generally, I think the deal in journalism is that it's considered politically incorrect to specify race in stories, except when there's a wanted criminal or something ("white male, about 25, 180 pounds, brown hair, scar on left face"). I believe the same is true with fiction, but it's dealer's choice. Provide as much description as you see fit.
I think one subtle way to do it is to let other characters describe the people for you. As in, "hey, have you always had this mole?" or "do your parents freak out if you date a white chick, you being Chinese and all?" I wouldn't mess with the Jewish thing at all; maybe mention the kid's out of school on the High Holy Days or something, but anything beyond that is too much to me.
On the plot, is it MELODRAMATIC? this would be bad, imo. I have ideas for where this story is going but am now second guessing myself on whether its overblown and melodramatic. Thoughts?I've read your first chapter, and my gut feeling is things are happening a little too fast to me. Me personally, my preference is for stuff to develop slowly, and start coalescing over time. I think trying to pace yourself (and the story) is a tough thing to manage, while still keeping enough details going on to make the story interesting to readers (and yourself).
I think a lot of your questions really revolve around STRUCTURE, which to me involves how the plot develops over time, how the characters interact with each other, where the dramatic highlights (and lowlights) occur, and how things build to a climax. Both the novels I've written so far (Groovy Kind of Love and Jagged Angel) had a similar weird structural thing, where the real climax to the novel happens about 2/3 of the way in, and the rest of the story deals with the aftermath that follows, and how the lead character(s) react.
I think it's important to outline where you're going with a novel before you actually sit down to write it. But at the same time, just make very basic, superficial notes -- like maybe two or three sentences per chapter -- so you know the gist of what happens in each one. There's still lots of room for you to invent things, and you have to go into it knowing that the outline can and will radically change over time.
Some violence is coming up (no spoilers), how can this be handled without resort to melodrama? How much is too much?It depends on the nature of the violence. I think about a dozen people die in Angel, and each incident was different. Some happened "on-camera," with the violence fairly visceral, and some of it was a lot more subtle. Some of it was sudden and shocking, and some of it built up over time. Every incident is different; there are no rules on this stuff.
The bottom line to me is to make the violence 100% realistic, so that even if it happens unexpectedly, the reader never says, "what the hell is going on? Why is this happening? This makes no sense!" For example, I have a school shooting in Angel, but I foreshadowed that with a couple of scenes beforehand, so we knew something was coming -- but we didn't know how or when it would happen.
How much internal monologue is too much? I'm writing a lot for P.8 and then overthinking it and not sure. Is my dialogue a better way to present things?Hard to say. I find long stretches of dialog to take up much too many pages, and can be tedious to read. I think a balance has to be struck between descriptive prose and dialog. Less is more. If a dialog scene is relatively dull, and doesn't really reveal anything new or surprising about the characters, consider changing it to description instead.
Internal monologues can be tricky, depending on whether you're writing in 1st person or 3rd. I think a little of this goes a long way, but be wary of ever showing the thoughts of two different people in the same scene. That can get very messy, very quickly.
How many characters can I reasonably present as upfront, downstage center? Can I bring some of them forward for more coverage without losing coherence? Anthony, Doug, Camille, Trey, Friedman? Is the fact that readers LIKE a character proof I'm doing it right or just proof of something else? Shouldn't some characters be DISliked? Are these characters multidimensional, with good and bad qualtiites both?I think there are no rules here. Hell, J.R.R. Tolkien had -- what? -- over 200 speaking characters in Lord of the Rings. I think Stephen King has over 100 in The Stand. But those two guys are far better writers than you and me.
My advice would be to keep in mind there are various levels of characters in a story. Some are peripheral to the plot, like "supporting players" in a movie, and we don't need to know much about them; some are the stars of the show, and we need to know anything and everything about them. Some are merely extras, and they may only have one or two sentences in the whole story.
I do think it's important to constantly think about conflict and emotion in the story, but at the same time, make sure that they're blended in with the plot smoothly enough that nothing seems contrived or phony. Villains (even minor ones) can provide a jumping-off point for major conflict: fight scenes (verbal or physical), threats, suspicion, fear, even blackmail or worse. I thought one of the most effective scenes in Groovy was one where the lead character sees a villain beat up a gay kid, but he doesn't do anything to stop it, because he's too afraid to say anything. All of us have been through this kind of situation, and even though it's harrowing and unpleasant, the point in my story was to reinforce the fear the lead character (and his boyfriend) had about being discovered. So the villain served a useful purpose here, even though he wasn't directly harrassing the lead character.
If the words aren't leaping out, should I leave it and return later or force myself through? If they're leaping but look bad to me, is that a cue to stop or to just let things happen?I know better than to force myself to write when I'm not in the mood. If I ain't feelin' it, screw it. I walk away and try to relax, or work out, or watch TV, or listen to music. I've had some of my best mental bursts of energy just after a good workout -- pump iron to the point of exhaustion, come home, take a shower, then I'm in the mood to write.
I take a little notebook around with me everywhere, just in case some brilliant thought strikes me at an odd moment. I also keep a notebook by my bed, just on the miraculous possibility I'll get a good idea from a dream. (It's happened. One of the last scenes in Groovy came from a dream.)
When I get really blocked, sometimes I'll jump ahead in the story and write something totally unreleated to the current situation. Or if I have a problem opening a chapter, I'll begin somewhere in the middle of the chapter, write to the end, then read what I wrote, and then come up with some kind of opening that works.
Is it okay to make this a little heavier than some readers seem to want it? How light is too light? How heavy is too heavy? Do I have to have a moral at the end, figuratively speaking? What if Exodus wins with Bobby, what if Angel were to wash his face and butch up....what if...what obligation, if any, do I have to present things in a positive way for gay readers, esp teenage ones?Screw that. Write from your gut, and write what you feel. I have to say, though, I felt like you got into the sex scenes very quickly, without a lot of build-up. That's just my opinion, and I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong -- just not the choice I would usually make.
I don't think every story has to have a moral, necessarily, but I learned from reading Joseph Campbell about how a lot of the greatest stories ever written present "a difficult moral decision that the lead character has to make." That's what influenced the way the story took a left turn in Jagged Angel, where up to a point, we mainly saw how the lead character reacted to different situations. We finally reach a scene where he has to actually act and make something happen, and that's a pivotal change.
A lot of the books on writing that I've read stress that you need to be able to sit down and come up with one sentence that describes the "theme" of your novel. In the case of Groovy, mine would be "true love is worth all the risks." In the case of Jagged Angel, I think it would be "you're better off being honest about who you are." It's hard to sum up 175,000 words in one sentence, but if you can just articulate this, I think it helps you know in your gut just exactly what your story is really about. Ask yourself, "what's the point? What am I really trying to say here? What will the reader feel when the story is over with? How much will the characters change from the beginning of the story to the end?" To me, that's the most important thing of all -- along with just following all the rules of good storytelling.
It's really cool to me how real these people seem to me--and I know I made them up. I really like some of them...is this sick, creating a stable of friends out of the air? Is it normal?I can tell you there's a little of me in all the characers I've created -- good and bad. But even the bad people in my stories had little good moments, and weren't 100% awful. And the good characters all had flaws. To me, the flaws are what make them interesting, and what make them real.
I think you have to think of them as real people, in that you're describing a situation as if you watched it unfold. In the case of Groovy, because that was such a personal story to me, I felt like I lived some of the scenes (even ones that never resembled my own life). I actually felt a sense of loss when major characters died. Some of my readers were furious when I did it, but I pointed out that there were clues there all along that these characters' days were numbered, and that I always knew who was going to survive and who wasn't. So to me, don't worry about satisfying your readers. Satisfy yourself first and foremost, and hopefully you'll entertain some people along the way.
BTW, there's tons of good books that cover all of the above ad infinitum. I dunno if you've read any, but I list half a dozen writing books over in the "Writers Workshop" area. Lotta good tips there. I don't profess to knowing it all, but I do read a helluva lot, and I like to think I'm a much better writer today for having read these books. Without them, I just would've been flailing around in the dark, trying to guess at stuff I could've never figured out on my own.
-
Uh-oh. Is there a way you can ask a friend, someone you've known a while, politely, if they're gay. Is it as simple as, "(Name), if I'm out of line, I'm sorry, but...are you gay?" -- When I was in school, I never felt like anyone who asked that was really sincere. They always, always seemed like they were baiting me. I'd hope I'd know if someone was genuinely caring about the answer. Hmm. Hope I didn't disappoint anybody back then.
You know, I was always one of those "100% straight-acting" kinda guys, to the point where I heard way too many "fag" jokes throughout my teen and adult years. I guess my disguise was a little too good. Only when I hit my 40s did I get to the point where I could glare at the joke-teller and say, "hey, some of us don't think that's too funny, y'know?" That usually shuts 'em up real quick, and it leaves them guessing as to whether I'm just gay or politically correct.
Me personally, I never asked any of my gay friends if they were or weren't. But when I finally came out about 22 years ago -- more than half my lifetime ago -- those were the guys I came out to first. All of them were happy for me and said, "hey, congratulations! I guess you know I'm gay, too," and we got past it that way. (A few of them were kinda shocked that I had figured out which way they were, and I laughed and said, well, either you don't hide it as well as you think, or my gaydar is better than average.) These guys took me out to clubs, showed me the gay neighborhoods, and clued me in as to what was what. "Gay 101," so to speak. Always nice to have a navigator in uncharted waters.
But there's no easy way to just ask somebody a personal question like that. Hell, this kind of thing can get you fired, if you do it at work. I'd say, if they're good friends of yours, just start by telling 'em about yourself. My line was, "I've been going through some changes lately, thinking about my life and figuring a few things out, and I finally came to terms with being gay." Or words to that effect. If they're really your friends, there won't be a problem. If they're gay, you'll find out quickly. If they're not, you both can get past it, and make it clear that you don't care either way.
I gotta say, though, there were at least two or three friends of mine who I thought were close enough to tell. After I came out, I guess they were uncomfortable about it; they sorta stopped calling, stopped hanging out with me, and our friendship sorta fizzled out. They weren't ever hostile, like if I bumped into them somewhere, but they weren't exactly friendly either, and things weren't ever the same. As far as I'm concerned, that was their problem and not mine. I was disappointed, but I got over it as time went on.
I don't know your age range, but in my case (early 20s at the time), I was careful who I told, particularly at the workplace. I've been a little more casual with it more recently, simply because it's a different time now. Besides, I live and work in LA, where there's a sizable gay population, and a good percentage of the entertainment business is either gay or "metrosexual." You might want to exercise caution, and be careful who you tell and how you do it. The important thing is, don't make a big deal of it. Make sure your friends understand, this is only *part* of who you are -- not necessarily your whole reason for existance.
As I told my brother and sister, "I'm still the same jerk I always was... it's just that now you know one more thing about me you didn't know before."
So I was like 23-24 when I finally took the plunge. As far as I'm concerned, it's never too late to accept the truth about yourself. The sooner you can do it, I think the more well-adusted you can be, and then you can eventually deal with how to fit it into your life.
Oh, one last thing: I don't buy the "10%" thing. The Kinsey scale goes from about 1 to 6, with one end being totally straight, and the other end being totally gay. I think there's probably 25% of the whole male population that would be capable of having gay sex under the right circumstances, but probably only about 5% who'd be comfortable enough to do it on a regular basis. Don't forget, some of the most hostile, homophobic jerks out there are the ones that are up a notch or two on the Kinsey scale, but are too frightened or ashamed to admit it.
-
I did not intend to imply this for real-life. It's just that I find an uncomfortably large percentage of authors that seem to use this as part of the plot of their stories. Again, I can accept it when it forms part of the premise of the story, but it seems that some authors almost think "I have to introduce some more conflict - I know, lets kill the parents in a car accident".
Oh, well in that case, I understand. I thought you meant this was REAL.
Sure, I agree: getting rid of the parents by killing them in a car wreck is far too convenient. There are countless stories guilty of doing the same thing, and to me, it's often an easy answer. Anytime I kill off a character, I damn well think about it for a long time, and make sure the person's death is justified in the story. Sometimes, I'm guilty of going back and inserting some foreshadowing just to provide a clue that this person may not be long for this world.
The laundry list of stuff you listed from that other story sounds a little over-the-top to me. But who knows? If it's well-written, and you buy it while you're reading the story, it's fine. But the moment a reader smells some plot point thrown in just to stir things up, I think they'll realize the writer isn't being honest with the story-telling. Conflict for conflict's sake doesn't work, either. There are always limits to believability, and I'm the first guy to scream about "internal logic" in a story, when things don't make sense or don't feel justified.
-
My personal complaint is where authors heap large amounts of unrelated conflict on the main character.
Give us an example. To me, as long as the conflict carries the story forward, and it doesn't come from out of nowhere, I don't see the problem.
On the other hand, if you have a kid who gets discovered having sex by his parents, gets thrown out of his house, has to live on the street, then gets hit by a car, later gets cancer, then decides to kill a guy to make some money... all in the first three chapters... yeah, I can see where maybe that's a little too much, and it's all kind of random.
So if you can give us an example of too much conflict, I'll be glad to give you my thoughts. Again, to me, as long as the conflict and action are logical, move in a pattern, and come out of the specific overall plot of the story, there's no problem. Of course, it all has to be believable; that goes without saying.
Based on what I've read, being the parent of gay teenager increases your chances of being killed in a car accident by a dramatic degree.Where did you read such a thing? This sounds like pure hokum to me. Do you have a website or online survey statistics you can direct us to?
As far as I'm concerned, gay kids (and adults) are just as randomly stupid, smart, rich, poor, fat, slim, ordinary, and special as straight people. We get a kind of jaded "reality" of what gay people are in TV shows and fiction -- even our own. Whenever my partner and I attend the West Hollywood Gay Pride festivals every June or so, we're always struck by how "ordinary" most of the audience is. Some of them look like totally ordinary people -- which, when you think about it, they are.
We're all just people, mentally and physically. To me, our sexual orientation is just one part of what makes us who we are; it's not necessarily the most important part of our existance.
-
Conflict is the very essance of drama. As I've often argued, conflict doesn't necessarily mean violence or catastrophe; you can have a lot of conflict just in a decision the hero has to make, or just in an internal monologue inside his or her own head.
William Noble's excellent book, Conflict, Action, & Suspense (part of the Writers Digest "Elements of Fiction Writing" series) goes into all of this in great detail. While it's true that too much conflict can lead to kind of a soap opera thing, where the antagonist is getting assaulted in every single chapter, the point is made that you have to have something going on to keep the action moving and keep the reader's interest up.
Think of conflict as another synonym for action. Conflict could be something as simple as a pivotal test a student has to take the next day, or maybe there's a traffic jam on the highway, and the conflict occurs because the hero is going to be delayed in a trip by fifteen minutes. Maybe the conflict happens when the hero is expecting a crucial phone call, then after he doesn't get it, he finds out his phone has been out of order for two hours. Conflict can be as simple as not knowing the information: I often see this done simply when a gay character is infatuated with another person, and we're not sure how that person will react.
There's a million ways to work conflict into a story. Usually, when I criticize a story for being boring, it's the lack of conflict (and action) that drives me to it. Conflict is the very heart of drama (and comedy); without it, what you wind up with is little character studies, where there's essentially no real story there. Those can be entertaining on some level, but they aren't real stories, with a beginning, middle, and end, nor do they set up a situation and then resolve it. To me, it's the difference between a little musical "movement" and a symphony. When you try to drag out a "movement" to the length of a novel, it gets very boring, very quickly.
BTW, I just discovered I have an extra copy of Mr. Noble's book. I'll be glad to give it away absolutely free to anybody who wants it -- first come, first serve.
-
I'm replying, once more, to Pecman's arguments on my board. I don't know why I am doing it, every answer I have provided to him isn't good enough.
You never answered any of my three questions. I asked very politely and rationally; everything I asked was very well-thought out, clear, and specific, but you side-stepped any direct answers.
Your so-called guidelines say nothing about how you'll now only allow "PG-rated" content, nor does it explain what that is. The only thing you say about content is this:
"No intergenerational sex, i.e. a person of legal age seducing or having relations with someone NOT of legal age. (if you are unsure if this applies to your story, email us with some specifics and we can let you know)
"No gratuitous acts of violence e.g., rape or coercion of minors, abusive situations involving minors, graphic violence, unwilling participants, dangerous sexual acts, depiction of minors being photographed without consequences (Again if this is needed as an event to develop plot it can be allowed. If not sure, ask.)"
And that's all you say about it. I can ask my three questions again, but I suspect you'll still ignore them. (Why do I suddenly feel like Michael Moore hounding George W. Bush?)
I don't allow urination, scat and sex with small household appliances. Is that too censorship?I don't find things like that interesting to read or write about either. But you don't say this on your website. Why not just say what you think?
You want to know why I didn't say ok, you can say this and not that? CONTEXT. I don't allow rape. But if the fact that it occurs is integral to the story, if the description of the incident afterward furthers the story, then it belongs. But if the story were rapes, unpunished, unrepentant rapes, then no it doesn't go.Well, my novel Groovy Kind of Love had a rape scene in it. I offered it to you sometime back, and you rejected it purely on that basis. I have absolutely no problem with that and bear you no malice for it. But your opinion now seems to negate that.
In my novel, the rape isn't completed; it's dramatically justfied (at least, it is in my opinion); the scene certainly wasn't done in a way to glorify what happened; it's done as an act of violence, not sex at all; and the guilty party was punished. Could I have left the scene out? Maybe, but I had already set up the villain in previous chapters, and he was too interesting a character to ignore without an eventual payoff. I felt it was dramatically necessary, and I even went into some detail about the rape victim's recovery (mental and physical) for the next few chapters.
I find it interesting that the original Gay Writers Guild (now essentially defunct) asked me to let them post the story. After receiving it, they told me they were a little put-off by the rape scene, and I told them, "no problem -- you don't have to post it," and I apologized for not reading their rules. You know what they did? They had a meeting and decided, "your story is good enough that we're going to change the rules to allow it anyway." And they modified their rules (which are very specific, by the way) to now say, "no rape scenes that are gratuitous or glorify the act." But the story is very definitely R-rated, and knocking it down to a PG would water it down unbearably.
Your comments leave me puzzled, Beagle. Note that I was up-front enough to tell you in the first place that we were having this discussion here on Awesomedude.com, and I sent you my text in advance, just so you knew what was going on. I don't do anything behind people's backs, and I wanted to give you every opportunity to respond. Note also that I never mentioned you or your website by name, and tried to be as fair and even-handed as possible. The Dude has been kind enough to let us have this conversation uncensored, and in fact has actually encouraged the debate as an open forum, which I genuinely appreciate.
I hope you agree, this is not a black and white situation, and that you'll eventually see that you've opened a huge can of worms with this. I think there's a right way and a wrong way to deal with the content of fiction by authors, particularly as it applies to graphic content. And to me, you did it the wrong way.
-
Maybe underthehoodster or someone else knows other examples of unusual instrument techniques, like using a bow on a guitar.
I'm a walking-talking expert on the music of the 1960s and 1970s, since I worked in radio for part of my life, and have been an enormous fan of rock & pop music for the past 40+ years. Last time I counted them, I believe I had about 11,000 CDs in the main music room of my house, along with about 6000 albums, and I-don't-know-how-many 45's. (Remember records?)
Note that the first time Jimmy Page got the idea to use a bow on the electric guitar was after he had dinner with fan (and actor) David McCallum, who at the time was the star of NBC-TV's Man From UNCLE series. McCallum introduced Page to McCallum's father, who was one of the principal violinists with the London Philharmonic. The older gent gave Page one of his old bows, and Page used it during a session for "Dazed and Confused"... and rock history was made.
And I'm Casey Kasem... and that's what happened, back in late 1968.
--Pecman
-
I finally got to see Farenheit 9/11 with my partner and a friend last night. It was pretty much as I expected: a slickly-made bit of entertainment, with some facts covered up by lots of opinion.
That having been said, I think the three biggest points of the movie are true:
1) Bush didn't really win the last election
2) the war in Iraq is being done for reasons other than terrorism.
3) Bush and the government are beholden to a lot of Mideastern money people.
I think many hundreds of commentators around the world agree on most of this, so this is not just Michael Moore's idea. Granted, some of Moore's reasoning is flawed, and the movie has moments that are extremely contrived and manipulative, but my gut feeling is that if even 60% of the movie is true -- which I think it is -- Bush should be voted out of office.
The two things that affected me the most in the movie were: the images of the wounded soldiers, like the young guys in their early 20s, who are coming back with missing limbs and so on; and the middle-aged woman who starts out as a conservative war Hawk, and winds up despising Bush after her son comes home in a coffin. Very sad and touching -- that's the kinda thing that stays with you for a long time.
I don't agree (as Trent says elsewhere) that basically the movie is a pack of lies. You may not be aware that Moore hired the fact-checker who worked for The New York Times to check all the facts presented in the film, and he also had three attorneys check everything that was said, to ward off any threat of a lawsuit. Note that no lawsuits have been filed at all against Moore over this film.
I'm not saying the film is 100% truthful, since some of it is largely opinion and conjecture. But there's no question to me that the war in Iraq is muddled, and is being fought over reasons that have little to do with terrorism. I also believe Bush is a very stupid guy -- probably the dimmest bulb we've had in the White House in many years -- and that bothers me more than anything else. Say what you will about Nixon, but at least that guy wasn't a dummy.
-
What about that reader who says your story was crap and your mother dresses you funny? What about the reader who wants to rewrite your story?
I have no problem discussing any facet of my stories in Email, with anybody who wants to question anything I ever did. Beyond a certain point, I have to eventually say, "well, I made certain choices for a reason, but it was deliberately done, and if you don't like it, that's cool." But that hasn't happened many times.
I always try to give every single letter-writer at least the courtesy of a reply. Sometimes, I resort to a kind of boiler-plated form letter, but I at least thank them for their time, and I also will try to answer any specific questions they had. In some cases, a few readers have pointed out little flaws here and there that have made me say, "hey! I never thought of that -- let me mull that over and see if I can fix that in a later draft," and I go out and do that. So sometimes, it helps to get criticism, especially if it's on something very direct and specific.
I have no doubt, though, that for every reader who does send in an email, there's probably a dozen others who didn't. I think that's just the nature of the Net: it's hard to communicate sometimes, and sadly, there are some wackos out there you gotta watch out for. But 99% of most of the emails I've ever gotten have been pleasant and complimentary.
--Pecman
P.S. BTW, "Hoodster" is actually a good guy, no matter what he says. Maybe a little sensitive, but generally a pretty good writer.
-
Yeah, the journalist was loosely based on my own experience as a staff writer for a couple of magazines (not Time magazine!), and some of the character's own traits were inspired by my friend Keith Morrisette.
I put the journalist in the story for two reasons: first, because I was upset at how the U.S. government is censoring certain kinds of news stories (particularly overseas), so we don't quite get all the information by the time it winds up on our TV sets and newspapers, and secondly, because when you hear about bizarre violent incidents, it's very rare that anyone ever finds out WHY it happened. Hell, I still don't know why the Columbine kids shot up the place -- unless you go with comedian Chris Rick's theory, which was "they was f-in' crazy!"
Note that in a rewrite, I plan to bring back the journalist in a brief scene in the next-to-last-chapter, where he asks the lead character, "do you see yourself as a gay kid who plays football, or a football player who happens to be gay?" And the kid thinks for a moment and then answers, "I'm just me -- me first, just a guy. And those other things are just parts of me." And the writer nods and tells him that's the best answer he could possibly have.
BTW, I just saw Farenheit 9/11 tonight here in LA, and man, that's a helluva movie. There's still a lot of twists and semi-truths in it, along with some contrivances, but the way Moore shows how the U.S. media is covering (and sometimes covering up) what's going on in America and overseas was quite sobering.
-
...but Jagged was a little rough on me as a classmate of mine lost his child in the Columbine Shootings and I knew the family.
Oh, believe me, I'm very aware of Columbine and the other school shootings around the country. Scares the living hell outta me, and I'm terribly sympathetic to the people who've gone through these tragedies.
My point in weaving that into the story was mainly because of the plight of Andrew Williams, the kid in San Diego who was taunted by bullies as if he was gay, even though he wasn't. After a few months of that, he got pissed-off enough to bring a gun to school and start shooting anybody and everybody he could. After the prosecution assured his family if he pled guilty (for a speedy trial), they'd give him a relatively-light sentence, like 20-25 years, but instead they gave him life without parole, which I think is horrible. I dedicated the book to him, because I think Williams is a symbol of the consequences that happen when kids who are different are harrassed by bullies.
So I was thinking about the amount of gay harrassment that goes on in schools every day, and the fact that -- unlike when geeks like myself were pushed around in school -- now, kids think they can even the odds by killing the bullies. It's a very sad situation, and I hope the story makes the point that there's a lot of victims there -- the kids who were shot, the parents, the teachers, and even the kid(s) who did the shooting. If nothing else, I hope the story makes people think about the subject.
--Pecman
-
It is interesting to note that it is the first time a documentary has ever taken the Palme d'Or the top prize for Feature Films and Short Films at the Cannes Film Festival.
More important than that, it's the first documentary ever made to make more than $50 million. It's well on its way to making over $100 million, which is unbelievable, given that Farenheit 9/11 only cost $6 million to make.
I studied documentary filmmaking in college years ago, and I've worked on many, many TV documentaries over the years. The last one was Motown 40, which aired on ABC about five years ago, and a PBS documentary on the history of Money, right around the same time.
The problem with Farenheit 9/11 is that Moore hasn't made a strict documentary. This is a film with a very strong point of view, and he chops and edits footage specifically to create a deliberately-slanted look at a complex situation. I think Moore is also guilty of "stacking the deck," arranging the facts (and carefully eliminating others) to make his targets look as bad as possible.
That having been said: while I criticize his methods, I think Moore's intentions are good, and I also think he's right. I already planned to vote Bush out of office in November, if only for his anti-gay-marriage attitude (and the bad economy and the ongoing war). I like the fact that the movie will get more people behind the same idea, so that's a good thing.
But a strict documentary, it ain't. It's very skillfully-done propoganda, by a very good filmmaker with a deliberate agenda. Don't fool yourself into thinking that everything in the movie is 100% accurate and true.
--Pecman
-
Follow the established guidelines and procedures for submission and final posts.
Paul, did you actually bother to read everything I wrote up there?
Did you see where, several times, I stressed that there are no guidelines and procedures on the guy's website? He won't say exactly where the line is, except to talk vaguely of "PG-rated content." What does that mean exactly? Can you define it?
If the guy just answered my three questions, I would've been fine with it. But he didn't. We have rules being enforced, but we aren't being informed what the rules are. To me, that's a big problem.
And the publisher I spoke of does actually have some printed guidelines. Nowhere does it forbid sexual contact between teenagers, but that's exactly what they cited to me in their emails.
Go read my stories on this website, and tell me if you think any of them are offensive or indecent in any way. And be specific, because I'd really like to know where you stand on this.
--Pecman
Scan to donate
I hate Gay Stories
in Writers' Workshop
Posted
Do tell! I'd like to read some of your stories, Mr. (or Ms.) Monk. I don't see any listed here on Awesomedude.com; can you tell me where to find them?
I agree, avoiding the cliche is an enormous problem, particularly for neophyte writers. One reason I've dragged my heels in starting my new novel is that it's a time-travel story, and a) all the good plots have almost been taken, and b) avoiding the many potential cliches is going to take a big amount of work.
As I've said before around here, though, I think the key thing is to try to surprise the reader, and never give them what they expect. I figure just doing that is a major part of any good story.