No New Music

I'm not yet middle-aged nor in danger of a destructive midlife crisis, yet there are few people thereabouts my own age that don't seem to be so lucky in this respect. I'm talking about the already jaded claims every generation jeers about, in that jaded, grizzled tone: there's no new music/movies/books/ideas etc.

I can't say for certain this isn't true. Every book is a different combination of the same 26 letters. Every movie had a clear beginning, middle and end. Tropes are used over and over. People really haven't changed much since that last big crawl over the evolutionary hump. Music theory has already proven that certain chords and formats always make the most popular music.

So what's the point?

The point is that people are too overly focused on the elements of egotism, formula, and inflexible taste to really look at the magic of creation. It's not the fame and fortune that keeps people from creating when their work is likely to just be a saturated influence of all the things that have already been done. Yet, lately, I've been digging around YouTube and I'm seeing some pretty inspiring channels. A voice coach that dissects professional artists and covers without trashing anyone. A girl who takes the songs of one artist to do it in the style of another. A digital painter that teaches you to paint skin without a step by step format because art is still personal. A brilliant watercolor painter who was ridiculed for his style in art school but blows me away with his work.

I won't keep you in suspense, so I'll post these channels now:

Sam Johnson

Ali Spagnola

Istebrak 

Laovaan

I might link those when I jump on my laptop later, but as I usually blog on a tablet, the switching around is tedious...

What really stands out for me is that, whether you want to or not, it's really hard not to feel the pull of both their obvious skills and passion for what they do. I'm not really the sort that is drawn to artists for their public image, and that's never more true than my more recent fascination with Billie Eilish. I don't care for her videos or cultivated 'rebel' look. P!nk was similarly the edgy pop star that didn't fit as the pretty little industry princess. Yet when I'm listening to music, I care less about whatever image they cultivate for themselves and wholly about what their work creates in me. In both cases, these women speak to me because they create moving music. The same goes for Alanis Morissette, who in her advent days, did a lot of weird twitchy grunge girl videos. Undeniably, her music overpowered any visual accompaniment.

Who did it first? Well, who really cares? Historically, when things had to have been 'new' at some point, were they ever really new at all or was the combination and delivery just really resonate with experiences or innate feelings we always had as humans? The first humans were already creating, even when survival was supposedly all we had time for. The crude cave paintings were often renderings of actual animals, but then you see the hints of pure imagination. Imagine how crazy the fellow cavepeople thought their friend who was painting SIX legged buffalo!

So, yes, some artists are awe-inspiring in their ability to reproduce things we actually see with painstaking accuracy with tools most of us can only manage to use to scrawl out a chicken scratch signature. Some artists wow in the abstract or fantastical categories. Some start movements or never end up trending until they aren't alive to experience it.

But when you find yourself jaded by the thought that nothing is 'new', remember to look for the people who are caught in the whirlwind of inspiration. Look for that mix of humility, enthusiasm, and obsession and listen to the way they are looking at the things you gloss over. Stop giving everything seconds or minutes of the time it takes to look at a finished product and start analyzing the hours and months that go into the work.

Appreciation is becoming lost in the flood of consumption. It can happen to any of us and it can be fixed. Rather than being the crab at the bottom of the tank, yanking everything back down, catch the flow and ride along at the top. Be vulnerable to experience change. 

I definitely doesn't mean you have to catch every trend. Nothing on this earth could make me appreciate mumble rap. But there's still innovation and connection out there. Shed some of the salt and moss gathering on your skin and look for it.

New to Me

While it's almost impossible to make an idea wholly original, most of us actually aren't looking for that anyway. In the many books I've read, the many words I've filtered through me, there are a lot fewer moments of profound change in my thinking or mood by comparison. I pore through entertainment of all types rarely expecting a revelation anymore--sometimes I'm just banking on a nostalgic high.

I didn't get into Game of Thrones for being original. For all of its taboo topics, it wasn't even shocking. If anything, it took all the parts that people were already writing about throughout human history and stopped letting powerful prudes cut them out. It's not some morally depraved trickery on the part of modern times but at some point, we stopped seeing sense in protecting grown-ass adults from controversial topics. They are still rated and able to be kept from children with the ease of technology but they aren't stricken from consumption by people who have every right to make that decision for themselves. 

GoT, however, was still original in a sense that today's trends are not. It's not a remake of a story already done, sometimes in the exact same media as before, ten or more years later. The characters and names and specific plots are not suspiciously or even blatantly mimicking something else.

My own stories? After not looking at them for a few years, those are new to me too. I rarely ever replay a game, reread a book, or rewatch a movie... Or rather, I don't ever plan to. The tendency I have is to think of something I once consumed and, if I can't think of it right away, it only builds this insane need to re-experience it when I can remember.

This can go badly. While I haven't yet cringed at my published stories, I've certainly murdered the magic of nostalgia by attempting to revive it. Instead of always insisting I relive it, sometimes I do look for something similar.

With a caveat. I will almost always ignore any attempt by authors, reviewers, etc. to compare it to a popular title. It's one thing to list inspirations in a bio but I am naturally suspicious of anyone who uses the popularity of something else to sell a story. In my experience, the ways it is 'like' something are not at all the ways I have hoped it was. The problem with telling me your work is like Stephen King is that the man is prolific and his own work isn't like the rest of his work. J.K. Rowling? If you mean it's set in a magic school, I've already read (and not finished) about 50 stinkers with that theme. I'm interested in knowing if it's a light or heavy read and, as for the nostalgia? 

Marketing doesn't nail that. It's kind of a weird set of feelings. It could be some element of a book cover, a font, a description or it could be the first book we dig out of a church sale crate. I'm not looking for a shiny bestseller, but a secret treasure. Not new, but new to me. 

And here's the thing: the next Tolkien will always be a man. We're a long way from a world that stops passing a gendered torch. That's not to say it wouldn't be flattering to be called the next Ursula Le Guin or Anne McCaffrey but those aren't household names. J.K. Rowling? (Again, she's a question; sorry, Joanne.) Go into purist fantasy circles and while, she's a token name to say 'see, a woman's successful in fantasy', she's also more deeply excluded on a list of 'serious' fantasy contenders. 

So I'm not going to navigate any genre by its bestsellers. While Netflix and Hulu are making bolder, sexier, more diverse choices (not always successfully, but gotta love them for going for it), there are many creatives struggling for a fair chance. While I'm not a fan of identity politics putting the squeeze on entertainment, it's just as true that perspectives of all kinds (and not at the expense of the white male) need to be observed.

However, some attempts are laughable. The insurgence of corny 80s style family comedies featuring people of color are terrible. They weren't good when it was white people and it's not less disturbing that these are all-black, all-Asian or all-Latin casts. It's too on-the-nose segregated in a way that backpedals on being 'woke' (and fuck that stupid term). There was a show on Hulu, I think it was called Here and Now, with a hippie white couple that adopted kids from all races and despite my initial wariness that it was going to be another on-the-nose heavy-handed toddler-lecturing hot mess, I was surprised to find a lot of cultural honesty, human fallibility and even a suspenseful fantasy element. Look it up and watch it. I'm disappointed it didn't get at least one more season.

Not every trip into diversity will be amazing. It's going to have a lot of clumsiness to start. It's not proof it's all terrible. However, diversity for the sake of diversity shouldn't be the rule either. Not all same race or same gender casts will be glaringly awkward. Some do work without a forced element of biased education or flatness. I don't care for Lena Dunham but I did enjoy what I've seen of Girls. It's not even a requirement to like the actors or anything else they've done. When I'm looking to bond with an idea, I'm not the sort to let hangups lead me. Perhaps this is why marketing is so lost on me. Not only does it not influence me, I can't commit to anything that assumes other people are that easy.

I just want people to know I'm an option. You may or may not like my work. It may remind you of something you've read. Whatever the case is, it will be new to you and original in its own way.

Bonus points if it resonates with you.

Novel vs. Screenplay, As Observed by a Novice

One of the side hobbies (that may turn into a freelance gig at some point) is editing screenplays. Although I've mentioned before that I once loved to write stories in the form of radio plays, I have to admit that until I started editing screenplays and noting the differences between editing those and editing my own novels, I didn't much consider which techniques were stronger between the two.

The obvious difference is in the output. A novel is not expressly used to manipulate the visual medium. While books often become visual media (games, movies, etc.), one of the many reasons 'the book is (mostly) better than the movie' (and I can note quite a few exceptions, and have) is because novels often employ more perspectives that the camera is not able to capture. Of course, there are ways that directors can employ novel elements, but when you encumber a visual medium with two many nuanced elements, it can destroy pace and become tedious.

Internal thought processes, direct narration, and multiple perspectives are often not employed in visual medium, yet they can use the benefits of elements like montages and vignette-edged flashbacks to delve into a character's mindset or history. I wouldn't say there are exactly limitations to what is possible as much as there are just more effective ways to do each one.

It's possible to end up being too 'novel' as a screenplay writer or too focused on the visual to take advantage of writing a novel. A novel isn't necessarily richer. A screenplay has to be considerate enough of the 3D space and staging, yet still give a director room to play in. Both novels and screenplays don't need to be completely detail-obsessed and, whether in the hands of a reader or director, whoever consumes it is likely to have a preference for either filling in the blanks for themselves or frustrated that the work is just too vague and needed a lot more detail.

A screenplay doesn't have to fuck with the big reveal. In fact, it's often necessary to cue the direction where recurring themes will later connect. You're not playing coy when it comes to weaving intent, yet at the same time, you are creating an air of mystery for the first read-through. Even with the markers of intent there, you're still not blatantly throwing in an 'oh, this is where you first suspect this character is the killer.' Instead, you're noting that there is a flicker of menace that makes another character swallow with apprehension, eager to chalk it up to imagination when the suspicious character pastes on a smile and talks in a comforting tone again. Because this is a missable element, it sometimes creates an element more intriguing on a repeat viewing. It can be tricky to create these elements (and that's a really generic one, to be frank) but the idea that screenplays are somehow less deep is absurd. It's not a popsicle stick puppet show, not when it's done well.

Really, anyone CAN write a screenplay or novel, but whether it's actually done well (taste being moot) is a matter of technique.

Upon inspection, you can find examples of where novels and screenplays successfully use their strengths to borrow from the other. Yet each must uniquely consider the efficacy of their elements. You still shouldn't bog down a visual medium with drawn-out thoughts and feelings (although novels can't really pull it off in excess either) nor should you make your novel a play-by-play of visual fuckery. Can you? Yes. And some readers might even want that. Although you can hardly be surprised that it's a very niche market and you can hardly be surprised that it's largely unpopular.

In fact, despite Tolkien and Martin's commercial success, many writers who attempt to draw out their novels with obsessive detail are often met with frustration that their efforts aren't nearly as successful. However, they are also often missing the hook--Tolkien and Martin have intriguing characters. This is a lot harder to hook than technique can hand you. Detailed fiction is a dime a dozen; characters others give a shit about are much more difficult to create. As a writer, you probably have a blind spot for how charming your characters actually are.

I mean, of course, I love my characters. They're like family. That's part of the problem. We often tolerate or overlook a lot of shit family does that we wouldn't stick around for with anyone else. No matter how clinical I am, how willing I am to sacrifice, humiliate, empower or transform my characters, there's still the likelihood that they just aren't jibing and my story is as fun as a high school history book without a cast a reader can care about.

Eh, I'm straying, but what else is new... I've never been too keen on developing the art of blogging. It really just gives me a place to babble so I'm not unfollowed for it on social media. On that note, I have a few things to wrap up today. Today is more editing for a friend and hopefully a start to designing my new business cards. Except my fish have been territorial pains-in-the-ass lately and keep splashing the hood when chasing each other, so it's been distracting to work in my room these days. Not really comfortable to work much anywhere else in the house though, so there's always something.

Rainy days are just so damned good for the arting though...

Why Write Fantasy?

For some people, this is probably an easier answer. Maybe it's always been your favorite genre or it's how you think. In my case, most of the entertainment I consume isn't fantasy. Video games, yes, but aside from my love of superheroes, I'm not someone that looks for fantasy shows or movies first. My tastes tend to lead me to comedy, dramas, medical and crime, even documentaries. So when I ask myself 'why write fantasy?', I had to do some digging. I'll have to jump around a bit, but there are a lot of layers to this.

I've come into adult concepts since childhood that I've struggled to understand even as an adult. When we struggle to understand, sometimes we give up and end up either accepting it unexplained or developing a stance of ignorance. There's even a lot of ego in our youth that tells us it's tolerance that makes it acceptable to just let our emotions lead, but as we grow up, we look for logical ways to be at peace with the unknown. We start to accept that the good and bad in people is subjective and variable and that we often say things that don't match our actions. For example, while people might generally see as tolerant, we often say something before we've thought it out that twists that. I watched an old video where Kelly Osbourne slipped up and said "If you kick Latinos out of your country, who will be cleaning your toilets, Donald Trump?" And most of us winced but at the same time, we knew what she bungled at trying to simplify too quickly. In this country, immigrants, legal or no, have a reputation for a work ethic that most entitled citizens, including Trump himself, would never touch. Kick out the people who are grateful to do thankless jobs and what good is it for any of us?

Because I'm not gifted with impeccable selections of speech on the fly, I tend to be more sympathetic when people, who normally do harmonize with their favorable character, stick their foot in their mouth and realized their attempts to simplify have to be explained with a lot more complexity once they've smeared it. I replay a lot of bungled conversations in my head. Sometimes even when I do well, I'll think of ten better ways to say it later. Words can have a powerful effect on our reactions and emotions, but I agree when free speech, hate speech or not, is protected. Words themselves might incite a lot of strong things, but I believe that the listener, the consumer, is ultimately responsible for their actions, that words are not actions unless they directly threaten to escalate (I'm going to kill you) or incite violence (we will meet here to kill you). I don't know about you, but I want to know who hates me. I don't want these people, disgruntled, silenced, sitting in basements, stirring a bitter stew that will hit me without warning. I think oppressing speech is doing more towards encouraging violence than just being disturbed by vitriol. 

That being said, communication of my ideas is very important to me, not that everyone fall in love with everything I say and do. When we speak out, we must accept that people will react, but the consequences of reacting violently are illegal and a crime and you can't blame words alone-- only your own immaturity towards the manifestation of your reactions. I certainly encourage people to counter hate speech with rebuttals and logic whenever possible-- I envy speakers like Jordan Peterson, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and even comedians like Joe Rogan. Even if you don't like their message or what I'm about to say, it's hard to deny that they deliver their messages brilliantly and with a practiced ease I envy. I struggle to get better at public speaking, but I think I would love to say things that such talented people could deliver with their focus and force of reason. I suppose as a woman, it's taboo to say that I would want a man to speak my words for me. I might also pick Christina Hoff Summers, a choice feminist whose levelheadedness I also envy, would work too. What these people have in common-- they claim responsibility for their words, grow with new information, and don't really lose their cool even when they raise their voice. They survive Q&As without dissolving into incoherent frustration.

Even explaining that, it still seems lacking to sufficiently encompass my choices as a writer. It is difficult to summarize, but words are a responsibility with consequences that can be justified, right or wrong, but how do we choose a medium to explore them?

Again, why fantasy, when I clearly have a love for understanding reality and have a solid basis in it? Well, the whimsical outlet of fantasy allows me to explore the deeper concepts of light and dark through metaphor. Not good and bad, mind you, since moral concepts also have levels of societal acceptability and individual experience. Often, there's a general consensus of what we know we can or can't be punished for, but individual mentality or even mob mentality often kicks against where 'morals' attempt to oppress people concerning even the use of their own bodies. And yes, personally, even when it's widely accepted to be moral or immoral, we come up with logical exceptions that bear consideration. It's extremely difficult for people to voice unpopular opinions, so we all need to find a playing field where we can test those doubts, fears, and curiosities. Non-fiction, where my life is concerned, has too many consequences for being tactlessly earnest.

It would be nice if adulthood was a magical escape from childhood dilemmas, but as an adult, I'm often pulled back into the lessons of my immediate past. I know both what it is like to be a child that had been through hell that some adults have not and to be an adult who is often disregarded as childish (I laugh freely, often and girlishly even at 37). I write adult fiction right now because my childhood just isn't kid friendly. I do use whimsical themes to bridge the gap but these adult themes do resonate with my real battles from adolescence.

Some people could make the argument that it is inappropriate for characters of a certain age to run into certain situations. Unfortunately, it's an uncomfortable truth for some of us. It's not a mark of how little your parents care or love you because it IS a sign of love and trust for them to let you explore the big bad world and hope you come back, alive, when you need a respite. The world does not and cannot protect us from the curiosities of reality. Nor should it. It should definitely have laws to protect against harm and it does, ones that at best will change as the world needs it to. What stands is that a child can and does get beat down by adult things. Telling a child that they can't possibly understand insults, abuses and raises their vitriol when they are certain they are not just living in it, but are one of the new demons who come to poke and ridicule them. Disbelief only reinforces it.

And yes, there are also attention-seeking predators, even children, who see that a tortured soul draws the sort of attention they want and mimics it insincerely. One thing I love about a Jordan Peterson video I watched is that he doesn't believe in 'erring on the side of caution'. (video here -- I encourage you to watch it and form your own impressions. Just taking what I say on faith is like playing a game of telephone. Always go from the source in case my interpretations carry a bias.)When he suspects that a patient is asking him to cater some demand of uniqueness with a privilege that they simply feel entitled to but doesn't stand to help them to pretend, he calls them out on it. He admits that sometimes he is wrong, but shows that it is imperative that we test the resolve of people's demands, to see if they are simply trying to mold others or truly find themselves. As a psychologist, he has seen that entertaining people's delusions does not help them learn how to grow as themselves. It's a very tough topic to discuss and he manages to find the words very eloquently. I even appreciate that he shows his thoughtfulness and consideration as he attempts to arrive at his answer. He's not just reading off of a script or parroting a false ego.

Diverting from the technical sides of my choice, I feel a kinship with harsh realities and the possibilities of fantasy. Life isn't just receiving our scars, but bearing them, even showing them in the sunshine. We can assemble armies or meet magical creatures, attune to our inner child or come to terms with being an adult. Even when we explore ourselves through our work, it doesn't assure hidden agendas, at least not intentionally. I've heard people make rather nefarious leaps of accusation-- underage sexuality? Pedophilia! Women writers detailing sex? Turns men gay (and I'm talking heterosexual sex even; apparently we force male readers to resume the stance of a woman to trick them into lusting for the male body. I couldn't even make this shit up)! Graphic calculated violence? Serial killer in the making!

I've always been a firm believer that saying it/playing it is often enough. Playing the games, watching the movies, reading the books, is often the satisfaction of the curiosity not the catalyst to demand more. When I write controversial topics, it is not done in secret delight, always the representative of my desires. I write things that make me downright uncomfortable. I can write something that titillates me and something that disgusts me in the same day even. Of course, those attention-seeking predators I mentioned before often look to call these the catalysts of their murder sprees, rapes, etc. Why? Because we create excuses for addictions, heinous acts, absolve people as brave for doing bad things and 'redeeming themselves', a culture that CREATES visibility for monstrous acts, encouraging people to abuse themselves and others so they can earn relevance for just doing what decent people do invisibly. Writers see this and make them into believable villains. Whether it humanizes or dehumanizes them, whether it's right or wrong is moot. We should continue to piss each other off, entertain each other, release words in ways that make people become curious, challenged. Do you back people up into a wall and tell them they're not cornered if they climb? Is there a rope, a ladder, a trampoline? Is the wall tall or short? Do you stop your pursuit or do they have to worry you're concealing a knife to drive into their back when they turn away? Presentation is everything.

Fantasy just aligns with the way I want to present my ideas. I'm not writing a book on psychology because it can't always be clinically accurate or documented in studies. There's a lot we don't understand about the brain and how it works. What other place could I bring to life the monsters under the bed, the monsters you mistake for friends, the smiles that hide the villains? It's not the only genre I will use, but right now, I'm in love with the way I can build characters and plots and puzzles and worlds and creatures, to lay color to the concepts and ideas around me? How else can I bridge the muddy transitions of childhood and adulthood with any clarity or understanding? How else can I mystify romance and horrify violence, overblowing it but making it logical to the landscape?

Fantasy is whimsy, fantasy is darkness, fantasy is triumph and tragedy.

On that note, I really can't wait to see this Welcome to Marwen movie. I'm not a very emotional consumer, but I teared up a bit just on the trailer. It does align with themes I work with and even inspired this post. One day, I hope to build up the scale of ways to present my own ideas. It's not unusual for writers to see movies in their head while creating, but I'm also well aware that a screenplay is a different creature than a novel (hey, did I mention I'm a screenplay editor? So it seems like a logical course to try it out someday). You can't dream too big.

More Fun with Words

Since I put in a few thousand words today, I'm allowing a little break to blog. Don't worry; I'm keeping this one light. We're all entitled to a little venting here and there, but fixating on it is poisonous. Get it out, let it run its course, get back to what moves you to make the world a better place.

My current book is a challenge in that I not only threw in a mute bard that found magical ways to communicate (I discussed that he was why I was playing with bracket use HERE), but there are also other creatures and characters that needed special ways to announce their thoughts. Communication is something we struggle with in its simplest forms, so how do you create special differences in creatures that speak with their minds or other languages or even different emphasis.

Sometimes your big dumb guy gets all CAPS when he talks. Because only your grandma who can't see the screen (teach her how to zoom the screen with accessibility options, you ungrateful offspring) and egotistical morons on Twitter use all caps, it stands to reason that maybe the ones that aren't so good at volume control would too.

I know some people enjoy integrating fantasy languages they make up, but I'm really not trying to assume anyone is trying to commit that much to reading a book. A new language is risky. Often, I might ease this burden by italicizing the conversation in two languages under certain conditions: 1) No one else can understand what one of them is saying. 2) It's communicated in a way that no one else can hear it (minds or inaudibly). This person is speaking the common tongue, this one the other-- one understands the italicized language, but the other speaks so that anyone overhearing would only understand the non-italicized language. In this way, I use font styles to communicate very specific events that the reader can pick up on. 

Many people wonder about the strengths and weaknesses of using different media and this is one way that books have an edge over other media. I wouldn't advise getting too creative with alternating fonts if you're going to use digital (keep in mind unless it's fixed format, the user gets to mash it all into the font of their choice-- if you do use different fonts for the print, I'd advise double-spacing the unique font into its own isolated paragraph, maybe even with indents removed, so it still stands out even in flex format. This applies to font size differences-- those might also be stripped in ebook flex formats). The best way to play with language appearance, is to stick with your chosen font (usually one of three defaults-- please look at your publisher's preference before you end up with a mess to reformat). Remember, if you're using italics, make sure you're not switching font types or those could get removed by your word processor and you'll have to hunt them down again. One way to make it easier to relocate any italicized sections-- use a symbol within your chosen fonts that you will not use anywhere else in the document and CONTROL/COMMAND+F that symbol to check your italics. When you're done messing with fonts, just make sure you remove those symbols before publishing.

I don't want to make it sound too technical here, since I do have posts for that. It's mostly my intention to open people up to some of the many ways you can style your manuscript for ideas that might get too complex in the description of them. Making a concept simpler is one of the many skills an author should endeavor to strengthen. If you don't know if it works, get someone to read it and offer suggestions. I'd make sure you keep the original copies and any changes and have future readers read each sample. If you find there's confusion anyway, you might want to attach some notes in the foreword explaining the usage. Tread lightly with that even-- you don't want to info-dump a 'how to read' section. Ouch. Big no. Some people will be able to follow it just fine. Even a little glossary in the back might be a useful addition, but also be aware that some people will just bail if you make too much homework for them. Your primary goal is still being an interesting storyteller. You may just have to approach it differently altogether if it doesn't take.

Sometimes a thing hasn't been done or isn't popular for a reason. It's great to be ambitious but when you're having fun with your ideas, ultimately you want the readers to have fun too. Reading is an escape, and one that is even losing its appeal with video games and movies and shows becoming so visually stunning. This is why bestsellers tend to be simplistic reads, quick, easy, done. It's wonderful that some writers go bigger and more complex and those can certainly succeed too, but this can be very dependent on genre and your storytelling abilities.

Do you have any fun ways of working with styles and words?