The Curse of the Carrots

Travis Erwin is right in what he says about vegetables. They are the devil's food. I decided to cut back on fattening snacks and replace them with carrots. Dutifully, I bought some baby carrots at the store recently and over the course of a couple of days I "treated" myself to a few when I felt the urge to snack. This was not a wise decision on my part.

My body knows how to handle fatty treats. It responds appropriately. But apparently my body had no idea at all on what to do with carrots. My internal structures from the stomach on down are in wild revolt. Believe me, my brain has gotten the message. I imagine the exchange went something like:

"Hey there, Waste Elimination System, the brain wishes to inform you that the white flag is up. Surrener is imminent. What are your demands?"

*Waste Elimination System makes some untranslatable remark here. But the brain apparently understands and translates it as: "Send in the cupcakes and no one gets hurt."*

"Cupcakes on the way. Please release the intestines from the cramp restraints."
-----
-----

How Much Violence is Too Much?

In the early 1990s I found some 25 books in the “Edge” series of westerns at a used book sale. They cost a little over a buck all together so I bought them. All but the first had a subtitle of “The Most Violent Westerns in Print” on the cover. Well now, I was already writing horror fiction in those days so I felt like I knew something about violence. These sounded right up my alley. They weren’t. I read the first one, The Loner, and it was definitely violent. But to use an overworked term, the violence seemed gratuitous. I didn’t read anymore, but I kept the rest of the books anyway.

Flash forward to 2009. Someone mentions the Edge books on a blog and I pull out my old collection and give book #2, Ten Grand, a go. I seemed to remember from the first book that the violence seldom had a point, and this book reinforced that in spades. Edge is a brutal psychopath. He is a true anti-hero, amoral, vicious, and bent only on using others for his own ends. He beats and mistreats women whose only fault is to mistakenly link their lives to his. The only saving grace is that he usually doesn’t go ‘out of his way’ to mistreat folks. He prefers to be alone, but woe to anyone who ends up associating with him.

I was hoping for Edge to get gut shot within the first twenty pages of Ten Grand, but since I knew the series ran on for something like fifty books that wasn’t going to happen. After finishing book #2, and knowing I wanted to do a blog post about violence in books, I started book #3, Apache Death to see if it was any different. It was equally violent, but at least this time Edge didn’t beat up or kill any women so I found it a bit more tolerable.

I must also admit that there are some redeeming features about the series. They are fast paced, easy reads, all coming in at around 140 to 160 pages. The prose style is readable and even has a bit of poetry here and there, although the grammar is sometimes atrocious. They also have quite a bit of black humor about them, which softens the brutality a bit. You can see, I believe, a spaghetti western influence. Still, they are not my type of books and I simply don’t like the character of Edge. And the endings seem mostly of the type I’d call “convenience.” Edge is about to find a treasure but something happens and he loses it. Then it’s on to the next volume.

I prefer to be careful slapping the gratuitous violence label on anything. Cold in the Light was accused by one agent of being gratuitously violent. I believe she misinterpreted the book. The Warkind in that book are a warrior caste of a non-human species. Violence in defense and attack is essentially the reason why the Warkind exist. So, although they are violent, the violence is part of their very biology and not gratuitous. Or so I argued to myself.

On the other hand, I’m going to label the Edge books as indeed gratuitously violent. Over and over again we see violence that is not directly necessary to the scene. In Apache Death, for example, we see several women killed during an Indian attack on a fort because, for reasons unknown, they run from their hiding places into the open. It looks like they ran out from hiding just so they could die hideously. We also see in books #2 and #3 various women who have their breasts hacked off. I wonder if the breast hacking theme continues through other books in the series.

Like with sex, it’s always an open question as to how much violence is too much. The issue is complicated for me because most of the books I read certainly contain violence, while relatively few contain graphic sex. I’m inclined to think much the same way about the two issues, though. Violence, or sex, becomes too much when they are no longer integral to the plot of the story, when they appear to be there just for their own sake and not because the story demands them.

What do you think? How much violence is too much? And are there any violent books where you think the violence is absolutely gratuitous? I wanna know.
-----
-----

So How Much Sex Do You Need?

How much sex do you need?

In your reading?

I just finished reading book 279 in The Trailsman series, which is an example of an “Adult Western.” There are, or have been, several such series, including an even longer running one called “Longarm.” These types of books appeared as a subgenre in the 1970s, and though they’re pretty standard western stories in most ways, they always contain a few scenes of explicit sex. They generally have a somewhat higher level of violence than the westerns of earlier days, as well. The sex, in particular, is actually required by the series guidelines. If you don’t put it in, you don’t write for the series. The sex is also much more of a male oriented sexual fantasy than the female oriented one you find in romance and urban fantasy.

I’ve only read one Longarm, years ago, and a couple of the Trailsmen books more recently, the latter because they were written by friends of mine. Depending on the skill level of the writer, and both my friends are very fine writers, these books can be excellent examples of the western genre. I almost said a “rousing” adventure, but that skates the pun line a bit too close.

Now, I like westerns and have read a lot of them in my day, but I started wondering why I’ve read so few of the Adult Westerns, despite the fact that many are available. I realized that the explicit sex actually detracts from the story for me. (I found the same thing when I tried to read one of the later books in Laurell K. Hamilton’s series, although at least there has been something ‘more’ than sex in the Adult Westerns I’ve read.)

What happens is that I get involved in the adventure and the suspense of a “story,” then the characters go hopping into bed. I’ve got to page through to get back to the story line. And it’s not because I’m a prude. I don’t flinch at the explicitness of the sex; I don’t screw my lips up in a faint moue of disgust. I just don’t really want to experience “Story Interruptus.”

There is certainly a place for sex, even explicit sex, in fiction. I had a fairly explicit sex scene in Cold in the Light. I’ve also enjoyed some sexually explicit books where the story itself revolved around sex. But when I read fiction I’m reading for the story first. Usually, for me, sex is a garnish where fiction is concerned. And I hardly ever eat the garnish when I order a meal at a fine restaurant.

So, how much sex do you need…in your reading?
-----
-----

Forgotten Book Friday: Kalak of the Ice

Growing up, I read everything I could get my hands on by Jim Kjelgaard (pronounced Kyell’-gard). I’ve already reviewed his Desert Dog here, which is my favorite of his works. Some other very good books by him were Snow Dog, which reminded me of Call of the Wild, and Big Red and Irish Red.

Although Kjelgaard wrote mostly about dogs, he did write a cat book, Swamp Cat, and he wrote one about a polar bear. The latter was called Kalak of the Ice and is my topic for today. I read “Kalak” way back yonder and have always remembered it very fondly, but it is one of the hardest of Kjelgaard’s books to find. I finally got a copy off a used book site and just reread it this week.

Did it hold up? Not quite… I found the ending a little weaker than I remembered. But I also found myself once more compelled to turn page after page of Kalak’s story. And I’d probably still have to rate it my second favorite among Kjelgaard’s books.

Kalak, whose name is, I believe, from an Inuit word meaning something like “Bear of the Mist,” is a female polar bear. Through bad luck and human agency, she has lost her last few sets of cubs, and much of the book relates her attempts to protect and teach her new set of three cubs. There is substantial anthropomorphizing of the bears throughout, of course, or we wouldn’t have a book. But Kalak and her cubs are in no way just humans with fur. There really is a sense of bearness about them. At least to me.

Kalak of the Ice also features an Inuit tribe, and I enjoyed getting to know some things about the Inuit as a people. Kjelgaard is able to show the conflict that happens between the bears and the Inuit without making either side out to be the villain.

All in all, this is a great Y/A book. I wish I’d had a copy when Josh was little so I could have gotten him to read it. Well, maybe it’s not too late.

Forgotten Books Friday is the Encephalo kinder of Patricia Abbott.
-----
-----

For Want of a Better Post

Many of you know that I’m a big fan of Robert E. Howard, who is best known for creating the character of Conan the Cimmerian. Seeing as how work is still kicking my butt much like Conan kicks butt, I thought I’d post a few Conan haiku today. (Using the term haiku very, very loosely.) Eventually, I’ll return to a semblance of normalcy.

Conan walks into a bar. Bar collapses on impact.

Conan is approached by Senator Craig in public restroom. Problem solved.

Conan goes to Hell. They give him Hell.

Conan named Vice President. Stimulus bill passes.

Conan goes to Wall Street. Street name changed to Wasteland.

Conan is thrown from horse. Horse apologizes, then commits hari-kari.

Conan gets drunk. Ale makers have a very good year.

Conan believes the guts of his enemies will sharpen his sword. Conan is right.

Conan is bitten by a poisonous snake. After hours of intense agony, snake dies.

Conan falls onto a bed of nails. Nails now useless.

Conan is downsized. Bad move.

Conan meets Captain Kirk. Kirk must have phaser surgically removed from ass.

Conan meets Captain Picard. Finds that Picard’s bald head adds great shine to boots.

Conan meets Spock. Spock neither prospers, nor lives long.

Conan meets Oprah. No steak available. Conan eats Oprah.

Conan meets Dr. Phil. Dr. Phil tells Conan he has anger issues. Dr. Phil cancelled.

Drunk again, Conan stumbles onto field at Super Bowl. Conan wins.

----
----

All Work and No Play

Work has been kicking my butt this week, and that'll probably continue through next week. Then we'll have a little break for Mardi Gras. I don't really plan to do any parading. Been there, done that. I'll be home relaxing and reading. About all I've been able to get read is a couple of items I'll briefly review below. I also haven't been able to visit blogs as regularly but will try to get caught up today. My blog list is so big by now, though, that it's become pretty tough to make it through every post. I'm typically seeing about 80 posts a day.

Books Read:

I So Don't Do Mysteries by our own Barrie Summy. I am very much not the audience for this book. I think its target audience is 9 to 12 year old girls. There was still a lot of humor in it that I caught, and the writing was perfect for both the characters and the audience. I believe a lot of young girls will enjoy it very much. There were certainly many twists and turns, and most chapters ended with neat cliffhangers.


The Nightmare Collection by Bruce Boston. I very much am the audience for this book, which is a collection of Boston's speculative poetry. It's chock full of poems as well, weighing in at 95 pages, which is a tome compared to the typical poetry chapbook of 25 pages or so. And everything here is very good. Boston is quite possible the best speculative poet working today. His works have received numerous awards, but the proof is in the reading. Consider, "A small woman wearing a sheathe of dark feathers," or "I build engines from ivory and scrimshaw and the jaw-bones of apes."

Let me end with a quote from one of Boston's prose poems.

"When capital severed the tongues of science, when
politiicans sat in boardrooms, when the great religions of
the world would not stem the rising tide of mouths and
hands and the Earth began to wobble under the weight of
our species, you may remember that our family would often
gather for a sumptuous Christmas feast."

Nuff said!
-----

Writers Who Haven't Influenced Me

I love when writers talk about their influences. I find it endlessly fascinating and have done it myself. Some of my major influences would be Robert E. Howard, Edgar Rice Burroughs, John D. MacDonald, and Louis L’Amour.

But it occurred to me, twisted soul that I am, that authors almost never talk about writers who had no influence on them, despite the fact that they'd read one or more of that writer’s works. So, let me give you a list of my top non-influences.

1. William Faulkner – I’ve read a couple of Faulkner’s books and some of his short stories. I like the stories better, and believe Faulkner was a pretty good writer. But his style of telling stories, and his characters, just aren’t for me. And they are so different from my style and characters that I just can’t see how I could ever be influenced by him. Perhaps that’s to my detriment. But I just can’t see a Faulkner Effect anywhere in my writing.

2. Raymond Carver – I’ve read one collection of Carver’s stories and didn’t like any of them. People tell me he’s a good writer. OK. But I want characters who act, for good or ill, and Carver’s characters don’t act. They talk. I also find his characters unbelievable. I've never met any real life people like them, for example. Perhaps to my detriment again, I would strive very hard to not write like Carver.

3. Franz Kafka - I read The Metamorphosis and found it profoundly silly. I believe the basic themes have been done much better by other, and in a much more believable fashion. I can see nothing of Kafka in my work.

4. Hunter S. Thompson – Now here's a writer whose work I actually like. I’ve read several of his books and various of his essays. I’ve enjoyed them, but that style of “gonzo” journalism is as far beyond me as differential equations. Nothing from Thompson has spilled onto me. Except maybe some booze.

5. Tom Clancy – here’s another writer I like fairly well, but his subject matter and way of expressing himself on the page are very different from mine and I don’t see any sign of Clancy graftings in my own work.

6. There are other writers who I’ve enjoyed who I think have had little if any influence on my own work. Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, John Grisham, Richard Laymon are among them. All are fine writers, and I’ve very much enjoyed Asimov and Clarke, but it’s their stories that resonate with me, not their style and approach to writing.

How about you? Who weren’t you influenced by? And it doesn't have to be writers. Heff could tell us who didn't influence his drinking. Or Lana could tell us who didn't influence her art. The possibilities are endless.
-----
-----

Sunday Roast, and Writing Quiz

David McMahon did his Sunday Roast interview with me this week. I appreciate David taking the time to run it. I enjoyed answering his questions. You can check it out on his blog if you've a mind to.

I haven't mentioned much here about the writing class I'm teaching this semester but so far it is going well and I seem to have a pretty good crew of students. Below is the first quiz I gave them. I'll bet you all get them correct. Or else you'll want to argue with me about the correct answer. ;)

Writing Quiz. Each blank = 1 point.

1. In trying to communicate specific information, the main
advantage of writing over talking is: _______________________


2. The main disadvantage of writing is: _________________________


3. (1 Pt). Which of the following is NOT one of the "good"
habits that I suggested you develop to improve your writing?
a. Schedule a time for writing and stick to it.
b. Use a dictionary to look up words that you are unsure about.
c. Write only until you get tired, then stop for the day.
d. Read a wide variety of other people's writings, from textbooks
to novels.
e. All of these are "good" habits.

4. Since your audience is not present when you are writing a
paper, you must think more carefully about what you are going
to say than when you are having a spoken conversation. Name
two things that you can do which could help you figure out the
kinds of questions readers might ask.

a. _________________________

b. _________________________


True/False (1 point each). (Please circle your answer).

5. T. F. The only reason for writing is to communicate ideas.
6. T. F. Writing skills depend upon inborn verbal abilities and
cannot be learned.
7. T. F. Once you have found a formula for writing a successful
term paper, you should stick with it so that you
will always be guaranteed to get good grades.
8. T. F. I suggested that you should just assume that the first
draft of your paper is not good enough to hand in.
9. T. F. Writing is easy.
10. T. F. There is only one way to write a good paper.

11. Name the most recent book that you have read (or are
currently reading): ____________________

-----
-----

Answers: (AS I See Them)
1. You have time to consider your full argument without having anyone waiting impatiently to see what you're going to say.

2. You don't get immediate feedback about your success, or lack of it, at conveying your message to readers.

3. I think "C" is a bad habit. I urge my students not to write to exhaustion but to push themselves.

4. A. Develop your own critical reading habit.
B. Ask peers to read your work and tell you where they got confused.

For the True/False, 8 is true and all the others are false.
---
---

Forgotten Books Friday: Cap Kennedy

First, I forgot to mention this earlier in the week. One of my Halloween Horror flash stories has been published in slightly altered form over at Micro 100. It’s in Issue 2, February 09. It’s only 130 words so pop over if you’re a mind to. There are also some other good flash stories in the issue as well.


Cap Kennedy: Steely eyed. Steely jawed. Secret Agent of the Spaceways.

I never heard of the Cap Kennedy space opera series until about three years ago when I picked up three volumes from the now missing and highly missed used SF bookstore in the New Orleans French Quarter. The series began in 1973 with Galaxy of the Lost, and, as near as I can tell, ended with #17, Galactiad. The majority of the books were published one right after another from 1973 to 1975. That’s 16 books in two years. The last book wasn’t published until 1983, a eight year gap, and so far I haven’t been able to find out why.

The photo shows a variety selection of the books. (I borrowed this photo from Bonanzle, btw, and since I included their link I hope they won’t mind.) I kind of like some of these covers, although they have a certain heavy handedness to them. Still, the colors and bold strokes are vibrant and draw the eye.

The author listed on the covers for the series is Gregory Kern, who I’ve found out is really E. C. Tubb. I believe Tubb wrote all of them, though I’m not absolutely sure. Eight books a year is a pretty hefty output for one writer, although the books are very short, no longer than 125-126 pages. The publisher is DAW, and it looks as if they were striving for a Perry Rhodan type series. I’ve now read three volumes and liked them well enough to order more, and the series does a good job of producing readable space opera. It’s not as fantastic as the Perry Rhodan series, but the books are consistently fast paced and readable. Tubb was a pretty good writer. I’ve also liked his Dumarest of Terra series, under his own name.

The plots of the Cap Kennedy books are not exactly new, although they were fresher in the 1970s than they would be today. In Cap Kennedy #1, ships are disappearing in a Bermuda Triangle of the space lanes. Cap and his crew of operatives must investigate, and Cap himself gets caught up by the mystery when the ship he is on disappears as well.

I really enjoyed this first book in the series. I was completely caught up in the story and I liked the characters, though they are drawn with broad strokes. I did find the ending somewhat disappointing. It came too abruptly and didn’t adequately explore the mystery that had been set up. Tubb may have been laboring under some serious time and length constraints from the publisher, however.

I just finished book 3 of the series, Monster of Metelaze, and it was also pretty decent. If you need a fast paced space opera fix, Cap Kennedy might be for you. I’ve enjoyed the ones I’ve read, although I wouldn’t want to go on a binge. Judiciously mixing them with other types of books seems to be the ticket.

NOTE 1: Forgotten Books Friday is the brainchild of Patricia Abbott. Sadly, Patti lost her mother on Wednesday. Please wish her well.

Note 2: Two other of our blog colleagues have suffered grave losses in the past few days as well. Scott Hall lost his grandmother, and Bernita Harris lost her husband. Laughingwolf lost his father a year ago this week.

It's been a rather tough week. Let's all send our good thoughts in their direction.
----
----

I haven't eaten in three days.

A month or so back, as I was going into Borders one Monday evening, a woman approached me with: “Sir. I wonder if you could help me? I haven’t eaten in three days.” I gave her a few bucks and she thanked me and said: “I’m going right over to get something to eat.”

Last night as I was going into Borders, the same woman approached with the exact same spiel. I remember clearly the “I haven’t eaten in three days” and the “going right over to get something.” I gave her a few bucks, even though I realized I had been played a bit. I suppose “haven’t eaten in three days” can be effective, and I felt bad for the fact that she had to stoop to such in the search for money. She was certainly no spring chicken. She looked around 60, but I suspect she is younger. Her clothes were not remarkably bad, and though she was thin she didn’t look to be in bad health. She was certainly not attractive, though.

In the past, I have taken people into food places when they’ve asked for money, but the closest place to Borders is the Mall across the street, and I also had a meeting of my Borders writing group in a few minutes. So, I gave her a few bucks and let her go her way. I wonder if she really bought food, or if I actually supported her drug habit. I hope the former.

Such encounters leave me sad. What circumstances led that woman to me twice? I believe some homeless individuals are on the street because they’re lazy or they have drug habits that they’ve allowed to get out of hand. I believe those folks are in the minority, though. Maybe some homeless people made bad choices somewhere along the way. But who hasn't? It's a shame that so many can end up lost in what is still an affluent society.

And as for getting help, research on altruistic behavior does not endear my fellow humans to me. Many, many people do help, of course. But most of that is in a form that doesn't much inconvenience us. And it bothers me to know that people are less likely to help another person if:

1. The person needing help is physically unattractive

2. The person has any unpleasant physical characteristics, even including an ugly birthmark.

3. The person appears to be intoxicated with any substance.

4. the surroundings in which the person asks for help are unpleasant. (Very noisy, for example.)


5. The person in the position to offer help is under any time pressure.

6. The person in the position to help is in a bad mood.

Years ago, I was in Boston with a colleague of mine for a neuroscience conference. We were riding the city busses one night when a woman got on mumbling incoherently to herself. She had also clearly wet herself all down the front of her jeans.

After a couple of stops, the woman got up to leave and fell down the steps, ending up half in and half out of the bus. Besides the bus driver, there were about 15 people on the bus. No one moved. After a moment, my colleague and I both got up to help her. We got her to a bench at the bus stop and made sure she was sitting OK, and gave her back her large shopping bag full of what appeared to be trash. Then we returned to our bus and resumed our lives. I’ve wondered many times over the years what happened to her. I can’t imagine she’s still alive.

I wonder, too, how long the woman who hadn’t “eaten in three days” will last? Will I see her again in a month? Or sooner? If I don’t see her, will it mean she’s doing better? Or that’s she’s dead?

Twice now, we’ve met. She’s become one of my memories. Like it or not, she’s a part of me now. It’s harder to be blind when you can put a face on suffering.
-----
-----

High Noon: Contest Winners

High Noon. Or thereabouts. The stage arrives from Abita Springs, the horses lathered from a hard run. Josh Gramlich is driving; Arkansas Slim rides shotgun. They pull to a halt in front of the Lana Branch Saloon and Slim grabs the iron strongbox and leaps down to the street, his boots kicking up puffs of dust. A crowd begins to gather.

Hitching his gun belt higher, Slim carries the strongbox into the saloon and plunks it down on the bar with a loud jingle. Everyone follows, and a murmur builds among the people as the handsome and slender Slim first wets his whistle from a cold, foaming glass of beer.

“All right, pawdners,” Slim intones, then belches before continuing. “The winners of the Strange Worlds Contest are right chere in this box. But I’m afraid I don’t have the key. Only one lady carries the key to this here padlock. And to my heart."

“And who would that be, Handsome Slim?” a bell-sweet voice calls out from the stairs.

Slim breaks into his patented killer smile and doffs his hat to execute a bow before the Lovely Lana, the proprietress of the Lana Branch and the most beauteous woman in the territories.

“Why you, Lovely Lana,” Slim says. “Bring yoreself on down here and open up this box.”

The Lovely Lana sashays down the stairs in her scarlet saloon gal dress and drifts up to Slim where he stands by the bar. She reaches into the glory of her hair and draws out a key, which just happens to fit the lock of the strongbox. She opens it, pushes up the lid, then steps back a bit as Slim reaches in and pulls out: some gold coins, which he tosses aside like so much trash, some black diamonds, which he tosses aside, some bundles of greenbacks, which he tosses aside.

“Tarnation,” he says. “I know they’se here somewhere.”

He pulls out some rubies, then a few emeralds, and throws ‘em aside. But finally, nestled beneath a pile of silver ingots, he finds the two slips of paper he is looking for. These he draws slowly out as if they are worth a whole bunch more than their weight in platinum.

He looks at the gathered throng, all 43 of them. “Thanks to everyone who entered the Strange Worlds Contest,” he says. “It’s time to announce the winners. I appreciate everyone’s patience, so without further ado, the winners are:
Donnetta Lee.
Avery DeBow.

If Donnetta and Avery will send me their addresses at kainja at hotmail dot com, I’ll get yore books ready for the Pony Express to deliver right away.

Yippe ki yay.”
----
----

Writer or Actor

I’ve never wanted to be an actor. Except… I’ve always secretly harbored a desire to appear in a western movie, preferably as a gunfighter. Thus, you see why at age 50 I’ve strapped on my shootin’ iron and had Lana take pictures of me as Arkansas Slim. I feel like a goof, but it’s good fun. (No comments about the “slim” part.)

I’ve realized, though, that being a writer is something like being an actor. Our characters are our roles. We inhabit them. We try to bring them to life. Our stories live and die, as do movies, on the ability of our characters to carry the tale. Maybe some readers won’t notice if we give short shrift to our characters as long as we fill our stories with action. But we’ll notice. If we’re in the skins of our characters in the way good actors put on their roles, we’ll know when we “make” the character do something instead of watching them respond in ways natural to them.

If they want to be gunfighters you have to let ‘em.

I also apologize for letting the Strange Worlds Contest drag on. Work has just been crazy. If you haven’t entered to win a free book yet, please do so here. I’m going to close the contest at midnight central standard time on Saturday, January 30. And since I’ve made everyone wait so long I’m going to pick two winners for free books.

Good luck!

-----
-----

Who Are You Trying to Impress 4

Thanks to everyone who has managed to stay with me through this series, and who have thrown in their two cents. I do think my points have been misunderstood on occasion. My whole focus is on knowing your audience. I’m not saying that using words like argent or lavender is pretentious. Far from it. I’m saying that some audiences will care and others won’t. I’m not indicating that one of those audiences is somehow better than the other, only that they are different. And I’m not saying that there isn’t a market for fine writing. I sure hope there is. I’m saying that different kinds of writing are directed toward different audiences. I’m not trying to indicate that one of those audiences is somehow superior to another. Anyway, here are my closing thoughts on the topic, though such thoughts are always subject to revision.

First, a writer doesn’t have to pick one audience to write for. They may write different things for different audiences. Jack London wrote work directed at the most literate of readers and also churned out potboilers to make money. And, a writer may in fact write for more than one audience at the same time. I think a lot of writers write for readers but also find they have to please themselves first. And, as several folks have pointed out, the readers we writers have the most experience with is ourselves, so if we’re writing for “readers” we often use ourselves as a model. We could easily have two audiences, which don’t have to be incompatible.

Second, writers can, over time, change the audience they are directing work toward. When I wrote Swords of Talera it really was for myself. Although in the back of my mind I had some thoughts about becoming a published author, I never gave a single thought to audience in the first go through of that book. I wrote it purely and simply because it was fun for me and I wanted to know what happened next. As a result, it rambled. When I rewrote it in an attempt to published it, I took out the rambling parts and tried to focus primarily on the story, because I felt that was what the reader wanted. My main audience was no longer myself, although I still wanted to please myself too.

When I wrote Cold in the Light, I tried to keep the “reader” in mind every step of the way as far as story and action went, but I personally adore beautiful language so I tried to keep the prose at a little bit of an elevated level, both for myself and for my writer peers. But I’ll tell you honestly that when I wrote that book I wanted readers, as many as I could possible get. (I didn’t get nearly as many as I wanted.)

Wings over Talera was a hybrid. I wrote the first chapters right after finishing “Swords,” and it was still written solely for myself. But after “Swords” was serialized and I went to finish “Wings,” I tried to keep in mind the readers from the magazine who had liked “Swords.” I wanted those same readers to be happy with the new book. I knew that readers outside of fantasy probably wouldn't care.

Witch of Talera was written, from the first, for readers, the same folks who had enjoyed the previous ones in the series. Of course, I wanted to please myself as well, but I wanted, needed perhaps, to hear people tell me they really liked that book. I’ll tell you, for me, it is truly a great feeling to hear someone say they spent some of their precious time reading a story that I’ve written, and that they liked it. And I’d much rather have that than have a critic discuss the deeper meaning of my prose. The most wondrous gift that any book could give me as a kid was to fire my imagination. And that’s exactly the gift I’d like to give to others.

So who do I write for? Not for critics at all. And not so much for peers, except for the fact that I am one of those peers. I have to please myself in any writing project, or else I can’t go forward. But because I really want to be “read,” I can’t say that I’m writing primarily for myself. My main audience is the kind of reader who likes to read the same stuff I do. And I’d like to have a lot of them. Unfortunately, many readers just aren’t going to like the genres I like so I limit my potential audience by that very fact. Any time you select an audience there are likely to be tradeoffs. In writing, I don’t think you can have it all.

So, some of you have already answered the question of who you write for, but if you’d like to share feel free. And even if you don’t want to tell me, I think you should always tell yourself.
-----
-----

Who are you Trying to Impress 3

I’ve had folks tell me over the years that they write just for themselves. Some of these individuals have even been in writing groups with me. The fact that they were in a writing group made me think they were not writing “strictly” for themselves. They were sharing stuff and taking comments. That, to me, means that they wanted their writing to connect with others. If someone were writing only for his or her own pleasure, how would anyone else ever find out? Except, perhaps, by accident.

There’s nothing at all wrong with writing for yourself. In fact, I believe this is the purest of all motives. I just can’t believe that most writing folks honestly don’t care whether they are read or not. If you’re putting it out in any public forum, I think you want someone to read it.

It hardly needs to be said that writing truly for one’s self will not earn you any money, except, perhaps, by the sheerest freak of an accident.

On the other hand, those who write for “readers” have the best chance to make truly huge sums of money. The lucky ones will be able to buy and sell the champion money makers from the other three types. But money is only one motive for those who write for readers, and often not the primary motive. These writers often say they want to “entertain.”

Writers who write to impress readers avoid fancy language. They use a simple, everyday vocabulary and mostly short sentences devoid of adornment. They keep the focus off their style and on the story. They may strive to be largely invisible to the reader. Although they don’t necessarily shirk character development, their characters often serve the needs of the story more clearly than the needs of the characters themselves. This often means that the characters are sketched more broadly than in fiction directed toward critics or other writers. These writers also make strong use of action and often utilize cliffhangers.

Again, there is nothing wrong with writing for readers. Some might even say this is the primary audience toward which all writing should be directed.

For my next, and final post in this series, I’ll make some closing comments concerning the four types of audiences, and will tell you how I feel about them. And will reveal who I write for.
-----
-----

Who are you Trying to Impress 2

Last post, I argued that some writers strive to impress the critics. Other writers write primarily to impress their peers. In practice, I see this most often in writers who join critique groups populated by other authors. I’ve been in a few myself.

All writers want to impress their chosen “audience,” and I use “impress” on purpose because it’s a strong word that calls attention to itself. Whatever audience we choose, we want the respect of that audience. We want them to say, “job well done.” For the critique group writer, the first audience is a group of other writers. There is nothing wrong with this, of course. Most writers are also readers themselves so they can offer informed feedback on two fronts. However, it’s clear in my experience that writers typically judge fiction differently than do readers who don’t write.

What characterizes the work of writers who write to impress their peers? One, their prose is usually lucid and shows good grammar. There is often the modest use of metaphorical and poetic prose. These writers tend to use standard style for punctuation and dialogue. They don’t want their “format” to get in the way of communicating with the reader.

Writers who write for their peers also tend to insert self-referential elements into their work. They slip in references to other writers and to great works of fiction (which is not uncommon among the “write-for-critics” group, as well). They want to appear erudite for an educated and informed audience.

There’s nothing particularly wrong with writing for other writers. It can bring you acclaim, and sometimes wads of cash. Your work may not be taught in literature classes of the future, but it won’t be something disdained by those who teach such classes. It may not, however, give you the “common touch” that often marks the mega-selling author. And it won’t give you the widest possible audience.

Our next post will take us to those who write only for themselves.

P.S. I’d like to thank Writtenwyrdd (D. Lynn Frazier) for awarding me the “Kreativ Blogger” award. Much appreciated. There is a meme attached and I will get around to that after my current series of posts runs its course. Thanks again!

Also, the new Illuminata is out, with an expansion on a blog post I did called “Word Count Ruthlessness.” There’s plenty of other good stuff in there too. You can download the issue for free at the link. Look for Volume 7, Issue 1.
-----
-----

Who are you Trying to Impress?

This is the first of a short series of posts concerning the question “Who are You Trying to Impress,” which I’m addressing primarily to writers, although I could see that it might be applicable to other fields of endeavor. I consider this a very important question for writers to consider, because it gets at the heart of why we do what we do.

As far as I can figure, writers write to impress one of four different audiences. These are:
1. Critics.
2. Peers (other writers).
3. Oneself.
4. Readers.

Although the choice you personally make is up to you, there are some points I’d like to make about these choices.

1. Critics, as a group, are notoriously fickle. Although some critics are fine writers themselves, many are more concerned about the theory of writing than the practice. This is not bad in and of itself, but to me many critics focus more on style than substance, and style constantly fluctuates. What’s “in” today is “out” tomorrow.

Writers who target their work at critics strive to stand out from the crowd, and this often translates into breaking “rules” for the sake of breaking them. Such writers try tactics such as leaving out quotation marks from around dialogue, or shoving the dialogue from multiple speakers into the same paragraph. They often use experimental prose, writing in future tense, for example, or all in multiple phrase sentences, or in sentence fragments. They seem, at least, to express the idea that truly fine writing must be difficult to understand.

There’s nothing specifically wrong in writing to impress the critics, but most regular readers find such strategies distracting and irritating. And, naturally, some authors do a far better job of pulling off both style and substance than do others. Cormac McCarthy doesn’t need to leave quotation marks out of his dialogue. It’s an affection, nothing more. But McCarthy still tells powerful stories about wonderful characters. Hubert Selby, Jr, the author of Requiem for a Dream, doesn’t need to cram the dialogue from multiple speakers into the same paragraph, but this could be forgiven if his characters weren’t so lame and his prose so dishwater dull.

If writers who chooses this path get lucky, they can win a lot of awards and occasionally even make huge amounts of money. If they gamble wrong they’ll likely be largely forgotten, although one thing that can save them is the movies. I firmly believe, for example, that the movie Requiem for a Dream rescued the much weaker book.

Next post, we’ll consider writing to impress peers, which I believe is more common than writing for the critics. Stay tuned.

P.S., some of you may have noted that I’ve changed my profile picture. Lana and I took some “in character” pics on Tuesday and I thought I might as well use one for the blog.
-----
-----

Suddenly, I'm Popular

Well, some very good stuff is happening around the web for me today. And I just have to share.


Sidney Williams, one of my longest running friends in the writing biz, is starting up a podcasting series called Fear on Demand. His first "episode" is a horror story by me called "Thief of Eyes," and it's online now. You can find it from the link to Sid's site, which you should check out, or directly at Fear on Demand.

Also, David Cranmer has posted the next installment of his excellent webzine called Beat to a Pulp. It's a noirish story by me called "Whiskey, Guns, and Sin." You can check it out from David's blog page, or through the direct link to Beat to a Pulp.


Finally, Shauna Roberts, a friend of mine who used to live nearby in Louisiana, has been kind enough to award me the Prémio Dardos award. According to Shauna's post, here is the purpose of the award:

The Prémio Dardos is given for recognition of cultural, ethical, literary, and personal values transmitted in the form of creative and original writing. These stamps were created with the intention of promoting fraternization between bloggers, a way of showing affection and gratitude for work that adds value to the Web.

Thanks very much to Shauna. I really appreciate you thinking of me.


OK, enough about me. Enjoy your weekend!

Forgotten Book Friday: Donald Wollheim

A week or so ago I posted about Donald Wollheim’s wonderful juvenile SF novel called The Secret of the Martian Moons (Moons), a favorite of my youth. Little did I know that I was about to discover—not some forgotten books, but some never known books. It turns out that Wollheim wrote a virtual trilogy of young adult novels with similar themes. The other two are called: The Secret of Saturn’s Rings (Rings) and The Secret of the Ninth Planet (Planet). I had never heard of either but I had to have them, and thanks to the internet I was able to order copies of each. I’ve already finished reading them.

The three books each feature a different main character, but all are young men just reaching adulthood. “Moons” features Nelson Parr. “Rings” features Bruce Rhodes. And “Planet” features Burl Denning. They are largely interchangeable, and character development is not the attraction of these novels.

You already know what I think of “Moons,” so here’s my take on the other two. The Secret of Saturn’s Rings features Bruce Rhodes and his scientist father in a desperate race to reach Saturn’s rings. To save earth, they have to prove Bruce’s father’s theory about how the rings formed. Much like Nelson Parr and his father in The Secret of the Martian Moons, Bruce and his father are endangered by saboteurs. “Moons” was first printed in 1955, and “Rings” is copyrighted 1954, which makes me think that “Rings” was almost a run through for the later “Moons.” “Rings” is not as strong as “Moons,” and is weakest of the three books by a good margin. Don’t get me wrong, though, it’s still a fun book.

The Secret of the Ninth Planet is copyright 1959, which makes it the last of the three. It is very good. I believe if I’d read it when I was a teenager I’d remember it about as fondly as I do “Moons.” In “Planet,” Burl Denning starts out working with his father on an archeological trip to South America, but he ends up, without his father, on a spaceship racing to save earth from a group of aliens who are “stealing” the Sun’s energy.

In some ways, “Planet” is actually better than “Moons.” Instead of being focused on one planet, Burl and his fellow crew members must visit Mercury, Venus, Mars, and some of the moons of the outer planets before they reach lonely Pluto. For sheer world building then, it tops “Moons.” However, the book gives much of the “Secret” away earlier in the book than in “Moons,” and the secret itself is not quite as “cool” as in “Moons.” I still rate “Moons” a touch above, but I liked “Planet” a lot too.

I wish I’d found both “Planet” and “Rings” in my youth. Touring the solar system with Donald Wollheim could have wiled away a few more of my hours. I would have liked that.

PS: NOTE: Since I’ve been so swamped at work, I haven’t had a chance to pick a winner in the Strange World contest. I'm going to let it run until the end of January. So if you’d still like to enter to win a free book, check out this post.
-----
-----

Writing With Class

I’m teaching three classes this semester, Learning, Historical and Applied Perspectives, and Writing in Psychology. I developed that last course with a colleague, Du Bois Williams, a number of years ago, because we saw a big need for better communication skills in our students. I always enjoy teaching it.

Du Bois and I wrote the text that we use in the class, and later a third Colleague, Elliott Hammer, added his efforts to that text. I learn new things every time I teach the course and I hope to have some insights for you here on the blog across the semester. Today is the first class, and I’ll be introducing the format and talking about the resources the students will need.

Writing can take place with very simple tools, a pencil, some paper, and a mind. But it’s good to have some resources to back up what you already know. Besides our text, I tell the students they’ll need:

1. A dictionary. I carry the Oxford American Dictionary around with me, because it’s the biggest paperback dictionary available. I have the Random House Unabridged Dictionary for home.

2. A thesaurus. I use Webster’s New World Thesaurus in dictionary form. I was reading another writing in psychology guidebook the other day and it said, “avoid the thesaurus, use everyday language.” I believe this is absolutely horrible advice. There’s certainly something to be said for everyday language, but the problem is that many students don’t have nearly the vocabulary they need in the first place and a thesaurus is a good way to build one.

3. A book on grammar. I use The Elements of Grammar by Margaret Shertzer.

4. The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. You've got to have a style manual specific to your discipline.

5. Although I don’t require them, I suggest students look into getting a dictionary of psychology, and I strongly suggest they have a look at two of the best books on writing well that I’ve ever read, On Writing Well by William Zinsser, and The Elements of Style by Strunk and White.

* * * * *

In other news, poet Greg Schwartz has put up a review of my haiku chapbook, Wanting the Mouth of a Lover, over at his Haiku and Horror Blog. He had some nice words to say and it means a lot coming from another poet, and one whose own work I respect so highly. Check it out if you’ve got a moment.
-----
-----

Announcements and Links

Here's a reminder that the always exciting Book Roast Team: Blogless Troll, Christine Eldin, Dee, Diesel, Jason Evans, Sarah Laurenson, and Shona Snowden, will be back in action starting this Monday, January 12.

They're hosting a party that includes one hot publisher, two terrific agents, and six fabulous authors. The schedule is below:

Monday, Jan 12: Mystery Publisher
Tuesday, Jan 13: Eric Stone
Wednesday, Jan 14: Agent Lucienne Diver
Thursday, Jan 15: Barrie Summy
Saturday, Jan 17: Elysabeth Eldering

Monday, Jan 19: Mystery Publisher
Tuesday, Jan 20: Traci E Hall
Wednesday, Jan 21: Maggie Stiefvater
Thursday, Jan 22: Agent Nathan Bransford
Friday, Jan 23: Jennifer Macaire

Check it out here

Also, if you haven't entered my "Strange Worlds Contest" to win a free book, check out my Tuesday Post. Hey, it's FREE.

And please don’t forget that a site has been set up to help Travis Erwin and his family, who lost their house to fire on January 4. There’s a link HERE.
-----
-----