So this year I've Shoutcasted 6 events, 5 of which have been live, and I have 2 more coming up over the next months (1 of which is again live). Among these have been tournaments held at Armageddon expo, the Univeristy of Auckland and online for Riot's OCE Uni Championship. I've also branched out into Hearthstone, casting my first live event for that just a few weeks back.
And that's just this year.
Sure it's not a lot. There's people doing more than me in terms of volume. Hell, there's people casting online events every single week. The difference is I do just about every live event in the country, and the online events I cast are high-calibre. I hate feeling like I'm tooting my own horn, and for all I know I might just sound like I'm talking myself up, but I would like to think I'm one of the better shoutcasters in the country right now.
The reason I've made this blog post though is because there's a question I get asked with more and more frequency. 'How did you get into shoutcasting?'
Today I want to try and answer that question.
Thing is, there's actually two questions being asked within that one. The first is 'how did you get into shoutcasting?' and the second is 'how can I get into shoutcasting?'
The way I got into shoutcasting is pretty simple. I started.
A few years ago, I got involved with the DWAI Gaming community, becoming it's Oceanic Director shortly thereafter. In this position, I was tasked with establishing a community presence in Oceania for DWAI Gaming. Whether or not I was successful is a different discussion. Part of launching this community involved running events, which needed to be held to the same standard as our North American events. This meant they needed to be streamed, casted and well-run. When I first put the promotion out for our first OCE event, I had someone called Matt Ross post a comment asking who was going to be shoutcasting. I said that I was planning on doing it myself, but if he was free then I'd love the help.
He was free.
So together we casted that event. Then the one the week after. And then a week later again.
So it went on.
Matt Ross had more experience than me, and working with someone regularly made it easy to bring my own standards higher each week. The more we got to know each other's style, the smoother our casts became. We were also extremely honest with one another, and after each match (sometimes between games within a match) we'd have a chat about how the whole thing went, what went wrong and what we need to improve on. If it was crap, we'd say so. Then, we'd take the advice on board and work on it for the next match.
Our quality improved massively in that time.
The rest gets a little muddier, but really it came down to putting myself forward and having a few people in-the-know who felt I did good work and would vouch for me as a caster when events were being planned.
My first live event happened because of Matt Ross too. He was running a University competition in his hometown of Dunedin, and his play-by-play caster pulled out on him about a week or two before the event. He came to me asking if I could fly down and cast it with him. I agreed. Flights came out of my own pocket, but it was well worth it. We casted for two very long days, and had an absolute blast. The audience was small, and I was wearing jeans and a polo, but the whole thing was a massive step up from the online events we'd casted. The next time he ran that event, he offered me the casting gig first. And yes, I accepted.
Once again, Matt Ross had more experience than me, which meant he also knew more people than me. Along the road I also met one Daniel Klinac, who was again very much in-the-know. Somehow between the good words put in by these two I ended up being put on the team that casted at DigiNationz that year in Vector Arena.
From there it snowballed. I'd made a name for myself with the right people, and had a reputation for saying 'yes' to live events. Next thing I was being asked to cast at Armageddon expo for 2015. Again, flights came out of my own pocket.
But that's starting to change now, and in truth it's only been about 6 months since I started doing high-calibre live events.
So how did I get to where I am? Well like I said, I always said 'yes' to live shoutcasting opportunities, and I always did the best work I could no matter what I was casting. Nothing is beneath me.
I still have a long way to go, and could be a lot better than I am, but it's something I can very nearly say I do professionally. That's a big thing for me.
As to how you can get into shoutcasting things like I do, here's what you need to do:
1) Do good work.
2) Take any gig.
3) Show up.
It's a small community here in New Zealand, and if you do those three things you'll get noticed before long. Once you have that reputation, the work comes to you.
As for me, I hope to turn this into something that can earn me money one day. The eSports industry is constantly getting bigger, and the fanbase grows with it. Two years ago League of Legends was the only thing seen in New Zealand. Now we have events for LoL, DotA, CS:GO, Hearthstone and many more. I'm excited to see how much bigger it gets in the next year.
Now imagine what it will be like in 5 years.
That's something I'm psyched to be a part of.
Showing posts with label Advice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Advice. Show all posts
Sunday, 9 August 2015
Sunday, 31 May 2015
Fictional Fans
I should stop forcing puns into my titles...
So I don't like fanfiction. Don't read it, don't write it, don't like it. It's never done it for me. I don't have a problem with it, and if you're a fan of fanfiction all power to you, but to me it just feels chronically unsatisfying.
It's one of those things that follows Sturgeon's Law. 90% of Fanfiction is crap, but the other 10% is good enough to make wading through the crap worth it. Only thing is, that 10% is incredibly elusive. Why? Because there's literal years worth of fanfiction out there. Sure, there are ways to separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were, but the truth is, I'd rather just read a professionally written book.
Yep, there it is. I prefer paid professionals to amateur aspiring authors.
Oh god even I hated that sentence...
In all seriousness though, it's the same reason I'd rather watch Raging Bull than my friend's short film about boxing. Maybe my friend is the next Martin Scorsese, and I think it's great he's nurturing his talent and increasing his skillset, I just don't want to spend my time watching his baby steps.
Maybe that makes me a bad person.
Thing is, fanfiction is good. It's a healthy thing for aspiring writers. It allows you to work on very specific things while you improve your writing. You can avoid things like needing to come up with new characters (so you can focus on plot) or coming up with original plots (so you can focus on prose). It's a way for writers to develop their skill while contributing to a fandom they're passionate about. That's cool. Go them.
Still doesn't do it for me.
I think part of that comes from the fact that a lot of fanfiction is really wish-fulfillment. Once that wish has been fulfilled, the writer stops bothering. Moreover, their intention isn't to improve, it's just to write that thing they wanted the book to do. In that case, you might as well save time and just imagine that thing happening instead. You can do that in seconds. Writing takes a lot more time than that...
There's also that part of fanfiction that's really self-congratulatory. I get why people write the wish-fulfillment stuff. It's because they want to see it and they know how much they wish someone else would write it, so they write it to cater to everyone else that wants to see it. Thing is, those people then get to see the thing they want and then they walk away from it. The only feedback is 'Yes, finally, someone wrote it. I've wanted to read this so bad for so long.' The writer walks away feeling good, even if what they wrote was a total mess.
That being said, everyone in that exchange enjoyed themselves. The writer got to feel good about their writing (deservedly or otherwise), the reader got to see the thing they wanted to see and the copyright owner got to add another one to the 'sue for retirement fund' file.
Maybe it's the inherent lack of improvement that bothers me. It's not so much the fanfiction, it's the people writing it. I think you have the right to do whatever you want, and you're more than welcome to call yourself what you want, but I reserve the right to think that title is undeserved. If I unclog my toilet, I won't be introducing myself as a plumber to everyone I meet. By extension, I don't think writing fanfiction qualifies you as an author.
Lots of authors have written fanfiction. The difference between them then, when they wrote fanfiction, and them now, when they're published, career-writers, is improvement. Authors moved away from fanfiction once they'd learned what they needed, and started writing their own things, where nothing came pre-built.
To top it all off, you don't have to use fanfiction to learn those skills. It's just one way of many. For every author who started with fanfiction, there's another that didn't.
Keep writing fanfiction. Keep doing what you love. Don't let me discourage you. Just be aware of what it is you're doing, and be honest with whether that makes you an author, or just someone who writes. Because the truth is, everyone writes, but only a few of us will shake a new hand and say 'Hi, I'm Roger and I'm a writer.'
Ok yes I'm still salty about Fifty Shades of Gray...
So I don't like fanfiction. Don't read it, don't write it, don't like it. It's never done it for me. I don't have a problem with it, and if you're a fan of fanfiction all power to you, but to me it just feels chronically unsatisfying.
It's one of those things that follows Sturgeon's Law. 90% of Fanfiction is crap, but the other 10% is good enough to make wading through the crap worth it. Only thing is, that 10% is incredibly elusive. Why? Because there's literal years worth of fanfiction out there. Sure, there are ways to separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were, but the truth is, I'd rather just read a professionally written book.
Yep, there it is. I prefer paid professionals to amateur aspiring authors.
Oh god even I hated that sentence...
In all seriousness though, it's the same reason I'd rather watch Raging Bull than my friend's short film about boxing. Maybe my friend is the next Martin Scorsese, and I think it's great he's nurturing his talent and increasing his skillset, I just don't want to spend my time watching his baby steps.
Maybe that makes me a bad person.
Thing is, fanfiction is good. It's a healthy thing for aspiring writers. It allows you to work on very specific things while you improve your writing. You can avoid things like needing to come up with new characters (so you can focus on plot) or coming up with original plots (so you can focus on prose). It's a way for writers to develop their skill while contributing to a fandom they're passionate about. That's cool. Go them.
Still doesn't do it for me.
I think part of that comes from the fact that a lot of fanfiction is really wish-fulfillment. Once that wish has been fulfilled, the writer stops bothering. Moreover, their intention isn't to improve, it's just to write that thing they wanted the book to do. In that case, you might as well save time and just imagine that thing happening instead. You can do that in seconds. Writing takes a lot more time than that...
There's also that part of fanfiction that's really self-congratulatory. I get why people write the wish-fulfillment stuff. It's because they want to see it and they know how much they wish someone else would write it, so they write it to cater to everyone else that wants to see it. Thing is, those people then get to see the thing they want and then they walk away from it. The only feedback is 'Yes, finally, someone wrote it. I've wanted to read this so bad for so long.' The writer walks away feeling good, even if what they wrote was a total mess.
That being said, everyone in that exchange enjoyed themselves. The writer got to feel good about their writing (deservedly or otherwise), the reader got to see the thing they wanted to see and the copyright owner got to add another one to the 'sue for retirement fund' file.
Maybe it's the inherent lack of improvement that bothers me. It's not so much the fanfiction, it's the people writing it. I think you have the right to do whatever you want, and you're more than welcome to call yourself what you want, but I reserve the right to think that title is undeserved. If I unclog my toilet, I won't be introducing myself as a plumber to everyone I meet. By extension, I don't think writing fanfiction qualifies you as an author.
Lots of authors have written fanfiction. The difference between them then, when they wrote fanfiction, and them now, when they're published, career-writers, is improvement. Authors moved away from fanfiction once they'd learned what they needed, and started writing their own things, where nothing came pre-built.
To top it all off, you don't have to use fanfiction to learn those skills. It's just one way of many. For every author who started with fanfiction, there's another that didn't.
Keep writing fanfiction. Keep doing what you love. Don't let me discourage you. Just be aware of what it is you're doing, and be honest with whether that makes you an author, or just someone who writes. Because the truth is, everyone writes, but only a few of us will shake a new hand and say 'Hi, I'm Roger and I'm a writer.'
Ok yes I'm still salty about Fifty Shades of Gray...
Sunday, 24 May 2015
What I'm Worth
I had an interesting thought lately. Been a while, I know.
I often read people proclaiming that I, as a writer, should not 'sell myself short'. They decree that I must only accept payment reflective of what I'm worth. That if I offer myself or accept work for free I'm discrediting myself and being taken advantage of.
I see the wisdom in this advice, and don't get me wrong I'm keen to make money off this stuff, but I can't help but ultimately disagree.
Thing is, it's a competitive market. And it's a seller's market. There are more writers than there are jobs. There's more books than there are book deals. Sure, indie publishers and content creator-driven enterprises are bridging that gap. But they'll never bridge it completely, because not everyone who can write has the time or energy to market their own book or run their own business. Even then, the returns are even less guaranteed with these forms. You might even be doing more work for no money.
I might want to do something for free to promote myself. Hell, this blog is me constantly putting out free content in the interest of developing my skills as a writer while slowly building an audience. That's normal. In fact, it's encouraged by many established authors to actively promote yourself by submitting writing to contests and making content publicly available for free. Pretty normal stuff.
Now yes, there's a difference between writing for my own self-interest and making no money and writing for an employer and making no money. The problem is, the line between 'employer' and 'publication to promote yourself through' is often very, very thin. Say I submit to a low-budget magazine that is someone's side project and barely makes enough money to cover its printing costs. Should I demand payment from them? Hell no. I go into that sort of arrangement expecting to not get paid.
Many will argue that by going into that arrangement I'm selling myself short and not valuing my skillset, and that may be true, but it's still my choice.
I think I'm worth a fair amount, but that doesn't mean every sentence needs to be making money. Sometimes, I just like to write for fun.
I often read people proclaiming that I, as a writer, should not 'sell myself short'. They decree that I must only accept payment reflective of what I'm worth. That if I offer myself or accept work for free I'm discrediting myself and being taken advantage of.
I see the wisdom in this advice, and don't get me wrong I'm keen to make money off this stuff, but I can't help but ultimately disagree.
Thing is, it's a competitive market. And it's a seller's market. There are more writers than there are jobs. There's more books than there are book deals. Sure, indie publishers and content creator-driven enterprises are bridging that gap. But they'll never bridge it completely, because not everyone who can write has the time or energy to market their own book or run their own business. Even then, the returns are even less guaranteed with these forms. You might even be doing more work for no money.
I might want to do something for free to promote myself. Hell, this blog is me constantly putting out free content in the interest of developing my skills as a writer while slowly building an audience. That's normal. In fact, it's encouraged by many established authors to actively promote yourself by submitting writing to contests and making content publicly available for free. Pretty normal stuff.
Now yes, there's a difference between writing for my own self-interest and making no money and writing for an employer and making no money. The problem is, the line between 'employer' and 'publication to promote yourself through' is often very, very thin. Say I submit to a low-budget magazine that is someone's side project and barely makes enough money to cover its printing costs. Should I demand payment from them? Hell no. I go into that sort of arrangement expecting to not get paid.
Many will argue that by going into that arrangement I'm selling myself short and not valuing my skillset, and that may be true, but it's still my choice.
I think I'm worth a fair amount, but that doesn't mean every sentence needs to be making money. Sometimes, I just like to write for fun.
Wednesday, 13 May 2015
Boy Do I Love Milestones
Pretty simple midweek update. Lifebringer has hit 200 pages and 40,000 words. Still got a fair way to go though...
In other news, the main inner city bookseller, Whitcoulls, is closing their doors. After a series of rough years and a total failure to so much as try and get it right, they're shutting their largest store. The company isn't going under, but when all the other locations sell board games, greeting cards and 17 of the Top 50 bestsellers, it certainly feels like they're on their last legs.
Whitcoulls, I'll let you in on a little secret. If I want to buy a board game, I'll go to a fucking specialty board game store. Same with greeting cards. You know where I go to buy books? The bookseller. You know what you are? A bookseller. You know what you need to sell? SOME FUCKING BOOKS.
Take the Hunger Games off the 'Top 50' shelves already, it's been there for 3 years. Give some other books the chance to shine. Trim down the 'generic crime thriller' section, and can the whole 'bestseller' isle. You're losing out to the online market, and that's because they're selling all those things for $20 cheaper than you.
You know what your point of differentiation is? Immediacy. That's right, you bitch and whinge that we're the 'instant generation' and have forgot to cash in on exactly that tendency. When I pay the extra money to buy a book from you, I'm not paying for a book, I'm paying for the convenience of having it straight away. When I order from the Book Depository it'll take a month to arrive, if it arrives at all. When I order from Amazon, I pay $30 in handling fees. And that's before shipping costs. I want to buy some goddamn books, and I want to hold them in my hand, and read them on the bus home.
You know why I don't buy from you? Because you don't stock anything I want to read. All the Jeffrey Archer, and Patricia Cornwell, and Dan Brown, and Clive Cussler. That's the shit people are buying online. They know those names. They don't need to see them on a shelf to be reminded of their existence. People will go buy those books where they're cheapest, and that place isn't your bookstores.
I've spent 5 months looking for a copy of Ernest Cline's 'Ready Player One' and Andy Weir's 'The Martian'. You don't stock them. At all. Not one copy. I've finally relented and paid $60 to have them both shipped to me, and it'll take 2 weeks for them to get here.
Bookstores aren't about buying what you know, or buying the latest 'bestseller', they're about discovery. Discovery, and niche markets. When I walk into a bookstore, I want to find something I would have never heard of otherwise. When did you stop delivering that? And for fuck's sake, why?
Hire a team of buyers for each genre, even each sub-genre. Have them buy stuff a little more off the beaten track. Have them be your quality control for indie books. Have them find stuff that isn't Dan Brown, or 'the next Dan Brown!', or 'praised by Dan Brown!'. Have them find books the rest of us never would without them.
Oh and when you only have 10 shelves for Fantasy and Sci-Fi, A Song of Ice and Fire shouldn't be taking up 4 shelves.
Don't sell chunks of printed paper. Sell discovery.
End Rant.
You pricks.
In other news, the main inner city bookseller, Whitcoulls, is closing their doors. After a series of rough years and a total failure to so much as try and get it right, they're shutting their largest store. The company isn't going under, but when all the other locations sell board games, greeting cards and 17 of the Top 50 bestsellers, it certainly feels like they're on their last legs.
Whitcoulls, I'll let you in on a little secret. If I want to buy a board game, I'll go to a fucking specialty board game store. Same with greeting cards. You know where I go to buy books? The bookseller. You know what you are? A bookseller. You know what you need to sell? SOME FUCKING BOOKS.
Take the Hunger Games off the 'Top 50' shelves already, it's been there for 3 years. Give some other books the chance to shine. Trim down the 'generic crime thriller' section, and can the whole 'bestseller' isle. You're losing out to the online market, and that's because they're selling all those things for $20 cheaper than you.
You know what your point of differentiation is? Immediacy. That's right, you bitch and whinge that we're the 'instant generation' and have forgot to cash in on exactly that tendency. When I pay the extra money to buy a book from you, I'm not paying for a book, I'm paying for the convenience of having it straight away. When I order from the Book Depository it'll take a month to arrive, if it arrives at all. When I order from Amazon, I pay $30 in handling fees. And that's before shipping costs. I want to buy some goddamn books, and I want to hold them in my hand, and read them on the bus home.
You know why I don't buy from you? Because you don't stock anything I want to read. All the Jeffrey Archer, and Patricia Cornwell, and Dan Brown, and Clive Cussler. That's the shit people are buying online. They know those names. They don't need to see them on a shelf to be reminded of their existence. People will go buy those books where they're cheapest, and that place isn't your bookstores.
I've spent 5 months looking for a copy of Ernest Cline's 'Ready Player One' and Andy Weir's 'The Martian'. You don't stock them. At all. Not one copy. I've finally relented and paid $60 to have them both shipped to me, and it'll take 2 weeks for them to get here.
Bookstores aren't about buying what you know, or buying the latest 'bestseller', they're about discovery. Discovery, and niche markets. When I walk into a bookstore, I want to find something I would have never heard of otherwise. When did you stop delivering that? And for fuck's sake, why?
Hire a team of buyers for each genre, even each sub-genre. Have them buy stuff a little more off the beaten track. Have them be your quality control for indie books. Have them find stuff that isn't Dan Brown, or 'the next Dan Brown!', or 'praised by Dan Brown!'. Have them find books the rest of us never would without them.
Oh and when you only have 10 shelves for Fantasy and Sci-Fi, A Song of Ice and Fire shouldn't be taking up 4 shelves.
Don't sell chunks of printed paper. Sell discovery.
End Rant.
You pricks.
Wednesday, 8 April 2015
More Milestones
A young boy, after dreaming for years of becoming a magic-wielding Priest, finally manages to bluff his way into the clergy and learn the magical arts of healing despite having no magical ability.
Intrigued? Good. That's my elevator pitch for Lifebringer.
Uninterested? Good. I like having something to improve on.
On the notion of Lifebringer, it's reached the 20,000 word and 100 page marks over this long weekend just gone. The story has been more thoroughly plotted out and I'm feeling pretty confident in its direction. It's looking to be a long one, as I'm a bit under 1/5th of the way through. For comparison, Maiden Voyage clocked in at around 80,000. This one is looking more in the ballpark of 120,000-150,000. I like big numbers, they feel impressive to write...
Speaking of Maiden Voyage, it's done. I know, I said it was 'done' a few months back, but this time it's really done. It's been proofed and given a final tidy-up and is 100% ready to send out. Now all I have to do is send it...
Which is where that first line comes in. I've been doing my best to learn about how to pitch my book. To be honest, this is my first time doing this for a book so I expect that I won't be very good at it. In any case, here's what I have for Maiden Voyage.
First, the elevator pitch:
A young engineer in a post-apocalyptic Europe becomes involved with the rediscovery of lighter-than-air flight and joins in a landmark voyage across the continent.
And now, the grand display:
Intrigued? Good. That's my elevator pitch for Lifebringer.
Uninterested? Good. I like having something to improve on.
On the notion of Lifebringer, it's reached the 20,000 word and 100 page marks over this long weekend just gone. The story has been more thoroughly plotted out and I'm feeling pretty confident in its direction. It's looking to be a long one, as I'm a bit under 1/5th of the way through. For comparison, Maiden Voyage clocked in at around 80,000. This one is looking more in the ballpark of 120,000-150,000. I like big numbers, they feel impressive to write...
Speaking of Maiden Voyage, it's done. I know, I said it was 'done' a few months back, but this time it's really done. It's been proofed and given a final tidy-up and is 100% ready to send out. Now all I have to do is send it...
Which is where that first line comes in. I've been doing my best to learn about how to pitch my book. To be honest, this is my first time doing this for a book so I expect that I won't be very good at it. In any case, here's what I have for Maiden Voyage.
First, the elevator pitch:
A young engineer in a post-apocalyptic Europe becomes involved with the rediscovery of lighter-than-air flight and joins in a landmark voyage across the continent.
And now, the grand display:
Malcolm Chevin is retiring at 22, after just one project as
head engineer. It's been years since he fled his wealthy aristocrat parents and
made for Switzerland, and it seems he's set for a quiet life. But it is not the
nature of the young to live quietly.
When
Malcolm volunteers himself to help build a breakthrough long-haul airship to
ensure the retirement of elderly engineer Frederick Zeigler, he finds himself
on the cusp of a scientific revolution, and in the midst of an arms race.
Now the
airship, with Malcolm aboard, finds itself tangled in plots of sabotage, a
relentless pursuit and an endless battle against the elements. Malcolm is no
stranger to the military might of the Francs, but will his elderly colleague, his
best friend and the ship's enigmatic captain fare so well? Or will the ship's
maiden voyage be its last?
So that's that. I guess I'm posting this up here because on the one hand I want people to at least laugh at my failures, but I'd also be keen as mustard for some feedback from more experienced writes who happen upon this solemn blog.
In any case, thank you to everyone who has supported me so far, and wish me luck in this final leap into the abyss. And by abyss I mean contracts.
Wednesday, 18 March 2015
I Won't Tell You Again
I had an interesting conversation the other day. I was chatting with a beta reader about Part 2 of Ambervale, and they made some (positive) comments about a certain part. I replied saying I was glad it came out well, because it was the biggest 'rule break' I'd ever done. For just 1 short line, I throw away all conventions of 3rd person narrative and totally change the tone of the text, and it worked. Everyone who's read it so far loved it. Safe to say, I was chuffed as a bucket.
Then they said something I wasn't prepared for. They asked 'what other times have you broken the rules?'
I had to think for a long time about the answer to that. Then all at once it hit me, I break the 'show don't tell' rule. Why? Because it's fucking dumb.
Ok, I'll eat my words for a moment here. It's not a terrible rule, and like all rules it's there for a reason. It's there because it works. The problem is, it doesn't work 100% of the time. Maybe 99%, but if you're trying to 'show' in that remaining 1% when you should be 'telling', your writing ends up just as bad as if the whole thing was 'telling'. Show don't tell is a good rule, and reiterating it to writers who are just starting out, especially young ones, is crucial. It's a fundamental part of the craft.
But like every fundamental piece to every art form, there are times it can or even should be broken. The skill lies in knowing when to do just that. The reason 'show don't tell' frustrates me is because all the way up people in the industry will talk about 'show don't tell' as if it can't ever be broken. Then, of course, they don't notice the places where it is broken to great effect because the writing is good. 'Show don't tell' is something people bring up as advice when writing is bad, so they never think about it when reading good writing.
This would be a terrible opinion to have if I couldn't back it up, so here are some times where perhaps you should tell rather than show.
Let's say a character makes an internal decision. It's pretty obvious you'd say something like 'he decided it wasn't worth his time'. That's telling, right there. You're telling your reader what the character decided, you're not showing him arriving at that conclusion. Why? Because it's internal. You can't show internal stuff all the time, especially if you're not using internal monologue. If you are using internal monologue, you still shouldn't show in most 'decision' places. Let's look at the 'showing' version of that.
'Hm, that looks really difficult. Should I do it? I don't know. I'm not sure if I'm physically capable. No, I don't think I'll do it'.
What a load of crap that was, all to explain one tiny decisions. Imagine if you did that for every 'he decided/she decided' in your book. When do you use that internal monologue? When a part of the thought process is important. Otherwise, can it. If the fact that they made that decision is what's important, just roll with writing 'he decided'. We make decisions all the time without any kind of internal debate or hesitance. If your character is driving along a motorway, are you going to have them think for two lines about whether or not they should change lanes, then doing it? Or are you going to say 'he decided to change lanes'.
When else can you throw out 'show don't tell'? Expository scene setting. Sure, you do it through 'showing' (in that you describe the physical area and 'show' what it looks like) but at the same time there's no difference between that and 'telling' the reader what the place looks like. Sure you can write 'sun streamed through the window onto the red table below' or 'there was a red table, a window above it and outside it was a sunny day', but neither one is 'showing' or 'telling'. They're told the same way, it's just that one is badly written. Sooooo maaany people read the second one and say to the author 'you need to show, not tell', but the rule doesn't even apply! There is no 'showing' or 'telling' here, it's its own thing altogether, existing outside of your overhyped boxset of 'writing for dummies' rules!
Next week, I talk about how I showed Neil Gaiman my blog and he told me it sucked.
Then they said something I wasn't prepared for. They asked 'what other times have you broken the rules?'
I had to think for a long time about the answer to that. Then all at once it hit me, I break the 'show don't tell' rule. Why? Because it's fucking dumb.
Ok, I'll eat my words for a moment here. It's not a terrible rule, and like all rules it's there for a reason. It's there because it works. The problem is, it doesn't work 100% of the time. Maybe 99%, but if you're trying to 'show' in that remaining 1% when you should be 'telling', your writing ends up just as bad as if the whole thing was 'telling'. Show don't tell is a good rule, and reiterating it to writers who are just starting out, especially young ones, is crucial. It's a fundamental part of the craft.
But like every fundamental piece to every art form, there are times it can or even should be broken. The skill lies in knowing when to do just that. The reason 'show don't tell' frustrates me is because all the way up people in the industry will talk about 'show don't tell' as if it can't ever be broken. Then, of course, they don't notice the places where it is broken to great effect because the writing is good. 'Show don't tell' is something people bring up as advice when writing is bad, so they never think about it when reading good writing.
This would be a terrible opinion to have if I couldn't back it up, so here are some times where perhaps you should tell rather than show.
Let's say a character makes an internal decision. It's pretty obvious you'd say something like 'he decided it wasn't worth his time'. That's telling, right there. You're telling your reader what the character decided, you're not showing him arriving at that conclusion. Why? Because it's internal. You can't show internal stuff all the time, especially if you're not using internal monologue. If you are using internal monologue, you still shouldn't show in most 'decision' places. Let's look at the 'showing' version of that.
'Hm, that looks really difficult. Should I do it? I don't know. I'm not sure if I'm physically capable. No, I don't think I'll do it'.
What a load of crap that was, all to explain one tiny decisions. Imagine if you did that for every 'he decided/she decided' in your book. When do you use that internal monologue? When a part of the thought process is important. Otherwise, can it. If the fact that they made that decision is what's important, just roll with writing 'he decided'. We make decisions all the time without any kind of internal debate or hesitance. If your character is driving along a motorway, are you going to have them think for two lines about whether or not they should change lanes, then doing it? Or are you going to say 'he decided to change lanes'.
When else can you throw out 'show don't tell'? Expository scene setting. Sure, you do it through 'showing' (in that you describe the physical area and 'show' what it looks like) but at the same time there's no difference between that and 'telling' the reader what the place looks like. Sure you can write 'sun streamed through the window onto the red table below' or 'there was a red table, a window above it and outside it was a sunny day', but neither one is 'showing' or 'telling'. They're told the same way, it's just that one is badly written. Sooooo maaany people read the second one and say to the author 'you need to show, not tell', but the rule doesn't even apply! There is no 'showing' or 'telling' here, it's its own thing altogether, existing outside of your overhyped boxset of 'writing for dummies' rules!
Next week, I talk about how I showed Neil Gaiman my blog and he told me it sucked.
Tuesday, 7 May 2013
The Zone
Today, at around 4 30 p.m, I found myself in the Zone. I quite like being in the Zone, it's a space that harbours hyper-productivity and I like being able to get a lot done given that I spend a lot of time getting nothing done on most days. I was looking like I would be finishing a whole chapter within the hour and would undoubtedly be finishing another whole chapter by the end of the week.
At 5 20 p.m someone came into my room and made a fuss about who would be cooking dinner, deciding that since I had mentioned I was at home during the day I could cook (despite not being able to plan a meal and get ingredients etc etc etc) even though the task had been prescribed to someone else. To put it plainly, my mother came in to my work space and acted rudely. The interruption in and of itself was frustrating. The death sentence to my precious Zone was that the exchange left me feeling angry. I haven't written a word of that story since, despite being on a roll of sorts.
This post is meant to be about the Zone, not the interpersonal dramas in my home, so I won't go into further detail about my afternoon. The Zone is like a bubble. You can call out to someone inside it and they will be able to hear you, but try and interact with the person inside and the bubble will burst instantly. It's such a delicate thing. Staying in the Zone can be challenging purely because it is so fragile. One can learn, and do so very quickly, how to stay in this Zone provided they are not interrupted. Thankfully the Zone promotes tunnel vision, so it is surprisingly difficult to get voluntarily distracted by things like the internet and food and that spot on the wall that is suddenly very interesting, all of which are common distractions to a person working while outside of the Zone.
The externals can simply not be controlled so easily. I can turn my phone onto silent mode but it will still light up and beg for my attention if someone sends me a message or calls me. I can ask that my dinner be left aside so I can reheat it at my leisure but at some point I will still have to eat it. I can be in the most isolated room in the building and someone might still choose to enter it.
Minimising these external threats to the integrity of the Zone is crucial to prolonging its lifespan, I have found. I have also found that there are in fact simple was to minimise these threats. Leave phones out of sight. Have an emergency sandwhich in your workspace when you start writing. Hang a 'Do Not Disturb' sign on your door. Untangle yourself from headphone cables lest you find yourself in an infuriating spaghetti-esque bundle.
"But Pixie," you cry, "I did all these things and someone still ignored my 'Do Not Disturb' sign so they could tell me off for not cleaning my room!"
Here's a quick guide for what to do when you are, for some reason or another, pulled out of the Zone. Fist of all, let it out. If you're angry, let it out and get the anger out of the way. Then lie down for a bit, maybe watch something on youtube. Numb your brain a little bit and let yourself get distracted. All the explosive emotion released when that bubble burst will get buried beneath the distraction and you'll return to the neutral state you were in when you entered the Zone. If you can't just sit down and pick up where you left off, go do something else creative. Pick up your local guitar, doodle something, make fart noises to the tune of 'Call Me Maybe', go write a blog post...
At 5 20 p.m someone came into my room and made a fuss about who would be cooking dinner, deciding that since I had mentioned I was at home during the day I could cook (despite not being able to plan a meal and get ingredients etc etc etc) even though the task had been prescribed to someone else. To put it plainly, my mother came in to my work space and acted rudely. The interruption in and of itself was frustrating. The death sentence to my precious Zone was that the exchange left me feeling angry. I haven't written a word of that story since, despite being on a roll of sorts.
This post is meant to be about the Zone, not the interpersonal dramas in my home, so I won't go into further detail about my afternoon. The Zone is like a bubble. You can call out to someone inside it and they will be able to hear you, but try and interact with the person inside and the bubble will burst instantly. It's such a delicate thing. Staying in the Zone can be challenging purely because it is so fragile. One can learn, and do so very quickly, how to stay in this Zone provided they are not interrupted. Thankfully the Zone promotes tunnel vision, so it is surprisingly difficult to get voluntarily distracted by things like the internet and food and that spot on the wall that is suddenly very interesting, all of which are common distractions to a person working while outside of the Zone.
The externals can simply not be controlled so easily. I can turn my phone onto silent mode but it will still light up and beg for my attention if someone sends me a message or calls me. I can ask that my dinner be left aside so I can reheat it at my leisure but at some point I will still have to eat it. I can be in the most isolated room in the building and someone might still choose to enter it.
Minimising these external threats to the integrity of the Zone is crucial to prolonging its lifespan, I have found. I have also found that there are in fact simple was to minimise these threats. Leave phones out of sight. Have an emergency sandwhich in your workspace when you start writing. Hang a 'Do Not Disturb' sign on your door. Untangle yourself from headphone cables lest you find yourself in an infuriating spaghetti-esque bundle.
"But Pixie," you cry, "I did all these things and someone still ignored my 'Do Not Disturb' sign so they could tell me off for not cleaning my room!"
Here's a quick guide for what to do when you are, for some reason or another, pulled out of the Zone. Fist of all, let it out. If you're angry, let it out and get the anger out of the way. Then lie down for a bit, maybe watch something on youtube. Numb your brain a little bit and let yourself get distracted. All the explosive emotion released when that bubble burst will get buried beneath the distraction and you'll return to the neutral state you were in when you entered the Zone. If you can't just sit down and pick up where you left off, go do something else creative. Pick up your local guitar, doodle something, make fart noises to the tune of 'Call Me Maybe', go write a blog post...
Wednesday, 1 May 2013
Bashful Prose Sweeping The Nation
I remember reading somewhere that there are two types of writers. Some of us are Sweepers and some of us are Bashers. I've never found something that seems to so accurately summarise the two approaches to writing. I may have tried a bit too hard to incorporate a pun into this post's title.
Sweepers, like myself, are writers who get it all down first. They write, and they write a lot. They will do big chunks before going back and editing. These 'chunks' might just be a single chapter or might be the whole book. After it's all down on paper they go back to the start and begin editing. This makes absolute sense to me as I tend to get 'in the zone' when I write and need to keep going until I comfortably reach a point where I can stop, at which point I walk away and spend some time thinking about how to continue. Rinse and repeat, hang out to dry for a few hours, bring in, fold, first draft done. It also makes sense to me from an editing standpoint. I can't edit the beginning until I know what the end will be like, otherwise I'll end up editing myself into a direction I don't want to take the story.
Bashers are perfectionists. For them, writing and editing are synonymous. They fight for every sentence and by the time they reach the end of the novel it's a completed work. Where a Sweeper might edit a whole act at once after finishing it, a Basher will instead opt to edit each scene as it is completed. This gives them a clarity of direction and helps soothe the pain of constantly questioning oneself about whether the last thing they wrote was 'right'.
I don't want this whole post being about the pros and cons of Bashers and Sweepers, or a bashing of Bashers, or an extensive list of notable Bashers and notable Sweepers. I want it to be about how us Sweepers seem to get catered to a little less than the Bashers.
I do think the writers that edit as they go are more common, and I do think most Sweepers do some small editing as they go (changing sentences here and there, correcting spelling errors, etc). I also think that the advice often given surrounding editing is geared heavily toward Bashers.
I would, given the above, like to offer some of my own advice. Edit. Definitely edit. If you don't do full-on edits where you re-write entire scenes and alter character arcs and so on until you've totally completed the first draft then that's ok. If you finish writing a bunch of pages, then go back and edit them before moving on then that's ok too. What's important is that you do, one way or another, edit your work before you call it 'finished'.
Bashers, go a little easier on yourselves from time to time. It could be worth your while to write that next little bit before editing lest you write yourself into a corner.
Sweepers, don't get discouraged. You may not have edited yet but that's fine, you'll find it easier when you've completed the novel's first draft as the whole story will be clearer in your head.
Commenters, seeing as I have some now, which of these are you? Are you a methodical Basher or an unbridled Sweeper?
Tomorrow I'll be uploading a short piece of fiction I wrote a few years back. In true Sweeper spirit, it will be completely unedited.
Sweepers, like myself, are writers who get it all down first. They write, and they write a lot. They will do big chunks before going back and editing. These 'chunks' might just be a single chapter or might be the whole book. After it's all down on paper they go back to the start and begin editing. This makes absolute sense to me as I tend to get 'in the zone' when I write and need to keep going until I comfortably reach a point where I can stop, at which point I walk away and spend some time thinking about how to continue. Rinse and repeat, hang out to dry for a few hours, bring in, fold, first draft done. It also makes sense to me from an editing standpoint. I can't edit the beginning until I know what the end will be like, otherwise I'll end up editing myself into a direction I don't want to take the story.
Bashers are perfectionists. For them, writing and editing are synonymous. They fight for every sentence and by the time they reach the end of the novel it's a completed work. Where a Sweeper might edit a whole act at once after finishing it, a Basher will instead opt to edit each scene as it is completed. This gives them a clarity of direction and helps soothe the pain of constantly questioning oneself about whether the last thing they wrote was 'right'.
I don't want this whole post being about the pros and cons of Bashers and Sweepers, or a bashing of Bashers, or an extensive list of notable Bashers and notable Sweepers. I want it to be about how us Sweepers seem to get catered to a little less than the Bashers.
I do think the writers that edit as they go are more common, and I do think most Sweepers do some small editing as they go (changing sentences here and there, correcting spelling errors, etc). I also think that the advice often given surrounding editing is geared heavily toward Bashers.
I would, given the above, like to offer some of my own advice. Edit. Definitely edit. If you don't do full-on edits where you re-write entire scenes and alter character arcs and so on until you've totally completed the first draft then that's ok. If you finish writing a bunch of pages, then go back and edit them before moving on then that's ok too. What's important is that you do, one way or another, edit your work before you call it 'finished'.
Bashers, go a little easier on yourselves from time to time. It could be worth your while to write that next little bit before editing lest you write yourself into a corner.
Sweepers, don't get discouraged. You may not have edited yet but that's fine, you'll find it easier when you've completed the novel's first draft as the whole story will be clearer in your head.
Commenters, seeing as I have some now, which of these are you? Are you a methodical Basher or an unbridled Sweeper?
Tomorrow I'll be uploading a short piece of fiction I wrote a few years back. In true Sweeper spirit, it will be completely unedited.
Monday, 29 April 2013
The Private Punchline
I love inside jokes. Inside jokes are the only thing that allow you the opportunity to grunt at a friend while rolling your shoulders backwards and make them laugh. It's a unique form of humour that can make or break the believability of a friendship in a story.
Maybe I've just read too much terrible fiction lately but I've come across so many stories that have had characters do or say incredibly weird things around a friend, have the friend laugh, explained that 'She laughed because it was an inside joke' and expected the reader to find it funny. It might be amusing to picture someone doing the macarena behind the back of an unsuspecting teacher in a hallway but it's not funny to be told it's funny. This breaks the believability of that friendship, because suddenly the reader is being told that the friends are friends and they have this inside joke because they are friends and it is funny because it is a joke. Maybe this boils down to show-not-tell, but I definitely think there's something more to it than that.
Some inside jokes in stories are good, and not just because the joke is funny to the reader. In fact, the entire point of an inside joke is that it's only funny to the people that are in on it. A good inside joke should be explained in a way that ends with 'I guess you had to be there'. It should seem weird to an outside observer. It doesn't even have to be funny to the characters anymore. The hilarity of it might have worn off and now it's a force of habit for those friends.
That seems boring though, doesn't it? What's the point of a form of humour being placed in a story if neither the reader nor the characters are laughing? It's simple really, the reader believes the friendship very quickly. I distinctly remember reading John Green's 'An Abundance of Katherines' wondering why the main character and his best friend kept saying 'fug' instead of the notably more offensive 'fuck'. It wasn't even explained to me directly that it was an inside joke of theirs (which, for good measure, had lost its humourous quality and was now a habit for them, which added to the implied closeness of the friendship). It was eventually explained to another character and only then did I come to understand the origin of the joke. Up until that point I had seriously been questioning whether Mr Green had simply been lamely censoring himself.
I think this all links to a wider opinion I have on writing humour into a story. In it's most basic form, the theory goes something like this:
Only write the humour in if you understand why the humour works.
Everyone has laughed at jokes before. Some of us have had the pleasure of making others laugh at jokes before. Few truly understand why they made the other person laugh. Even if they do understand it all, they must always keep in mind that when writing you lack the ability to truly apply things like comedic timing, intonation and rants about the Oxford Comma.
Maybe I've just read too much terrible fiction lately but I've come across so many stories that have had characters do or say incredibly weird things around a friend, have the friend laugh, explained that 'She laughed because it was an inside joke' and expected the reader to find it funny. It might be amusing to picture someone doing the macarena behind the back of an unsuspecting teacher in a hallway but it's not funny to be told it's funny. This breaks the believability of that friendship, because suddenly the reader is being told that the friends are friends and they have this inside joke because they are friends and it is funny because it is a joke. Maybe this boils down to show-not-tell, but I definitely think there's something more to it than that.
Some inside jokes in stories are good, and not just because the joke is funny to the reader. In fact, the entire point of an inside joke is that it's only funny to the people that are in on it. A good inside joke should be explained in a way that ends with 'I guess you had to be there'. It should seem weird to an outside observer. It doesn't even have to be funny to the characters anymore. The hilarity of it might have worn off and now it's a force of habit for those friends.
That seems boring though, doesn't it? What's the point of a form of humour being placed in a story if neither the reader nor the characters are laughing? It's simple really, the reader believes the friendship very quickly. I distinctly remember reading John Green's 'An Abundance of Katherines' wondering why the main character and his best friend kept saying 'fug' instead of the notably more offensive 'fuck'. It wasn't even explained to me directly that it was an inside joke of theirs (which, for good measure, had lost its humourous quality and was now a habit for them, which added to the implied closeness of the friendship). It was eventually explained to another character and only then did I come to understand the origin of the joke. Up until that point I had seriously been questioning whether Mr Green had simply been lamely censoring himself.
I think this all links to a wider opinion I have on writing humour into a story. In it's most basic form, the theory goes something like this:
Only write the humour in if you understand why the humour works.
Everyone has laughed at jokes before. Some of us have had the pleasure of making others laugh at jokes before. Few truly understand why they made the other person laugh. Even if they do understand it all, they must always keep in mind that when writing you lack the ability to truly apply things like comedic timing, intonation and rants about the Oxford Comma.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)