It Feels Like Christmas: The Gift of Good Grammar

After staring idly at my bookshelf, I discovered an old copy of Keys for Writers, which I needed for a class back in college.  While most of the book was geared toward writing research papers and such, there were also grammar and punctuation sections that made the geeky part of me jump for joy.  I sat down with the intention of flipping through the book quickly, only to look up after finishing and find that two hours had passed.

I'm pretty sure I love grammar more than is socially acceptable.  (Really, most "cool" people would never admit to loving grammar, but I've never claimed to be "cool.")  It had been a long time since I'd last reviewed a lot of the trickier rules, and I was thrilled to come across a few rules I'd either forgotten or never known.  Believe it or not, this is the type of thing that I find exciting and inspiring and, well, absolutely delightful.  It's like going to the Home Depot and picking up a new tip for my Dremel, or finding a new brush or paint color at the art supply store, only in this case, my new tools all came free.

Be it English or Spanish or Latin or even XHTML, language has always fascinated me.  Sure, I love storytelling; that goes without saying.  Storytelling has always been and will always be my passion.  But in the world of genre fiction, sometimes it seems like the language itself is treated as an afterthought or simply a means to get to an end.  I haven't met too many other writers in my genre who love not only the storytelling but also the intricacies of the language.

Now, I'm not a fan of flowery, showy, or pretentious prose.  Nothing is worse than a writer who seems to revel in the sound of their own words.  That, to me, is the writing equivalent of people who talk just to hear themselves talk.  But I do love to read the works of authors who achieve an effective flow to their words without tripping readers up with grammatical errors.  I also love challenging myself to avoid errors in my own writing, even if they are the type that most people don't care about.

In the m/m genre, I often hear people recommend novels by saying that if you look past the technical issues, a great story lies beneath.  For me, the two must go together.  Bad use of grammar, punctuation, or spelling pulls me out of a story and prevents me from fully enjoying it.  We live in a time when anyone can get anything published, and a lack of technical skills is a red flag, alerting me that I'm holding a piece that doesn't meet professional standards.  If genre writers want to be taken as seriously as literary fiction writers, and if self-published authors want to be taken as seriously as traditionally published authors, mastery of the basics goes a long way.

The technical stuff, after all, is the easy part.  There are books and style guides and online instruction manuals that spell out exactly how to do it all.  It's right or wrong, black or white.  The hard part is the subjective: crafting a story, deciding which risks to take, deciding which expectations to meet and which to ignore, and then owning those decisions.  I prefer to let readers get mad at me over the controversial things I allow my characters to do, rather than something as silly as poor use of grammar.

I owe it all to Alex

By now, I should know that no matter how many times I read through a manuscript, a handful of errors will deliberately hide from me until after I've already submitted it to the publisher.

To be fair, The Dragon Tamer was completely clean when I sent it in.  There were other improvements needed, but no typos.  Unfortunately, I can't say the same for the two novels I've submitted.  (Who would have thought that eradicating errors in a 10,000-word short story is a little easier than a 96,255-word novel?)

For me, the main culprit is dropped words.  My first drafts are usually quite clean (in terms of typos), but when I go back to edit, I always fall victim to MS Word's lovely habit of additionally selecting the word right before the block of text I'd intended to replace.

I'd just submitted Bonds of Death, sequel to Art of Death, to the publisher.  After submitting, I decided to go through the manuscript one more time—because nothing feels better than finding mistakes after it's too late to do anything about it (note sarcasm).  But since I had other work to do as well, rather than read the manuscript the same old way, I decided to have Alex read to me while I worked.

Other Mac users may already be familiar with Alex, but I'd never "met" him before.  For those of you who don't know, Alex is a robotic text-to-speech voice that comes with the more recent Mac OS's that sounds much more natural than previous computerized voices.  He's incredibly easy to use, and you can set up a shortcut so all you have to do is select the text you want him to read and then hit the shortcut, and he'll read it.

I know PC's have some sort of equivalent, because as a teenager on a PC, I used to write joke plays and make all the computer voices act them out.  (Ahh, good times...)  But I haven't used a PC in about five years, so if anyone else knows how to do text-to-speech on a PC these days, feel free to chime in.

Anyway, I was pretty impressed with Alex's reading of Bonds of Death.  The prose flowed better than I expected, and he even got almost all of the characters' names right.  He sounds a little ridiculous when he says "okay" and "yeah," and the dialogue is always hilarious because he's not a good actor, but what he's absolutely wonderful at is helping you find errors you might have missed when reading with your own eyes only—especially if you're editing under a deadline, and into the wee hours of morning when your mind isn't as fresh.

With Alex's help, I caught three dropped words, one duplicate word, one singular word that should have been plural, and two wrong words ("though" instead of "through," "hey" instead of "he").  If I'd had my eyes on the text at the same time he was reading, it probably would have been even more effective—although I hope not, because that would mean the manuscript had even more errors in it.  Of course, now I feel horrible because I didn't catch those errors before submitting the manuscript, but at least I know they're there and can fix them in the edits.

Meanwhile, I've finished the latest round of edits on Art of Death and will likely get a galley proof next.  Although I really combed through that manuscript and don't think there are any errors left, you can bet Alex is going to help me through the galley proof, just to be sure.

(and now, Alex is reading my blog entry before I post it...)

A quick note to authors with blogs

Are you posting a photo you didn't create?  An illustration?  A webcomic snippet?  Any other piece of imagery from the internet that you didn't license or pay for?  Then for the love of creative integrity, credit the original source!  This is important, especially if you're a professional!

Fanfics and Inspiration

Since the subject seems to have come up in the recent past, I wanted to take a moment and mention where I stand on the issue of appropriating fan fiction to make, publish, and sell an original story.  (I'm not talking about any particular authors out there.  Honestly, the number of other m/m genre authors I've actually read can be counted on one hand, and I can't make judgments on works I haven't read.  The ones I have read don't seem to be relevant to this post.)

I like to create stories in many different genres, so I knew surprisingly little about the m/m genre before contracting my first short story and novel.  For example, I didn't know that most m/m readers and writers are female.  I also didn't know that many m/m writers used fan fiction as a starting point for their stories.

Like so many writers, I've been making up original characters in my head since my elementary school days.  Now, I probably worry more than I should about whether my works are "original" enough.  Any time I see a character in another story or movie or TV show that's similar to one I've created, I have a mini heart attack and start considering whether I need to change my story.  From an artistic standpoint, I've even scrapped entire character designs after coming across others that I felt were too similar.  I may still fail, and in the end my stories may not feel more original to a reader than something that started as a fanfic.  The reader might prefer the fanfic over my story.  But alas, that's the way I like to do things.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that other writers can do whatever they want, and I won't join in any efforts to metaphorically lynch them if I happen to not write the same way they do.  I really have no qualms about how other people decide to write.  And if it works for them and they have a good finished product that reads as original, why should I complain?  But I will guarantee that none of my work comes from fan fiction.  For better or worse, 100% comes from my own backwards, scrambled, upside-down mind.

(on a side note, I plan to describe the origins of each of my stories in future blog posts, preferably when it's not 3am...)

Breaking (and Making) the Rules

As someone who's primarily read and written general fiction over the years, it came as quite a shock to me that many romance readers, writers, and publishers ascribe to so many rules I'd never heard of before.  Here are some of the rules I've heard, a few of which are not specific to the romance genre:

-All stories must end "happily ever after."
-First person is an inferior point of view, and only third person should be used.
-The only dialogue tag allowed is "said," but it's better to avoid dialogue tags entirely.
-Main characters and a romantic element must be introduced by a certain chapter.
-There must be "X" amount of sex in the story.
-Married characters can't cheat on each other.
-Only the lead couple can be shown having sex with each other.
-The main characters cannot experience any truly serious bumps or problems during the story.

I think I gravitated toward Dreamspinner Press because they don't impose so many of their own rules on writers and instead evaluate each story on its own merits.  I've seen some other writers, though, who are quite adamant in pushing their beliefs on dialogue tags, POV, etc.  I think it's great for writers to have rules for their own writing, as long as they realize that their rules are not universal, and that every writer should have the ability to draft their own rules to fit their own audience, goals, and creative vision.

So I've decided to list the rules I use in my writing.  I do not hold other writers to these same rules (although some of them do factor into my personal reading choices).  Also, some of these rules might be more accurately described as "goals," since my current skill level may not measure up quite yet.

Ironically, my own rules are probably more restrictive than the rules I mentioned above.  However, they are rules that make sense to me.

My Rules for Writing

I will end my story in a manner that's authentic to the plot and its characters.  "Happily ever after" will be a conscious choice, not a default.  Whether happy or sad, I will try to deliver an ending that is satisfying.

I will give the reader the freedom to decide what happens after the end of my story.  I will not dictate what happens ten, twenty, or fifty years into the characters' futures.

I will not forget to tie up any loose ends in the plot.  I may, however, choose to intentionally leave some untied.

I will not glorify or celebrate violence.

I will not use animal cruelty as a plot device.

I will not handle gender or orientation in an exploitative manner.  Characters will not be defined by their gender or orientation.

Even if my stories are focused on male characters and a male point of view, I will not use it as an excuse to create cookie cutter female characters based on overused tropes.  Any focal character, male or female, must be well rounded and original.

I will not pretend that people of color don't exist.  However, my characters will not be defined by their ethnicity but rather by their individual traits.

I will not treat minorities as helpless victims.

I will not use sex scenes in an exploitative manner.  Sex scenes will always contribute to the development of the characters involved.  They must work in the context of the story and not be excessive.

I will not let my characters lose their personality and individuality just because they have fallen in love or started a relationship.

I will not use narrative to fawn over my characters or let the audience see how much I love them.  I will let my readers come to appreciate them on their own and will not try to twist their arms into liking my characters.

I will try my best to use language that flows well, is fun to read, is not pretentious, and serves the plot.  I will try to avoid unnecessary words and will be as direct as possible without losing individuality, flow, or creativity.

I will not write plots based on a formula.  Formulas are for math and science, not art or creativity.

There will be no damsels in distress in my stories.

My stories will be based on creative vision, not on marketing.

I will write fiction, not propaganda.  I will not use my characters as a mouth piece for political beliefs.

I will not release a story I don't believe in.

I will only write a sequel if I feel it adds to the overall story, not as a means for financial gain.

I will choose originality over derivation.

I will submit to a publisher if my story fits within their rules (HEA, heat level, etc.), but I will not write a story to fit the rules of a specific publisher.

I will not make creative decisions based on a desire for popularity.  I will not water down my storytelling in an attempt to please everyone.  I will write for my audience only and accept that not everyone will want to be a part of my audience.

I will take risks in my stories for the sake of creative growth, even if I know the risk may make my story less popular.

If someone else's rule has sound reason and makes sense to me, I will follow it.  If I disagree, I will not follow it.

If it is not against my rules, it's fair game.

Okay, your turn!  What are YOUR personal writing rules?

How To Read A How To

As some of you may know, in early October I received my first short story contract. Since then, I've been in contact with many other writers and have had the opportunity to learn a lot from them. In a recent conversation with a more experienced author, she told me about her unpleasant experience reading a "how-to" guide to writing. The guide was written by another author whose work I enjoy, and although I knew he'd put out this how-to guide, I never felt inclined to read it. The conversation made me think about why I'd avoided his book, and why I actually tend to avoid most how-to's in general, both in writing and in art.

Would I read a tutorial called "How to use the curves tool in Photoshop" or "How to use an airbrush"? Absolutely! Do I read the Chicago Manual of Style and check out the style guides of any publisher I plan to do business with? Definitely. These are technical skills and guidelines that anyone can share, and I'm always interested in learning them.

But when it comes to creative endeavors--i.e. how to write a novel, how to paint a webcomic page, etc.--I believe that the words "how to" in the title of any book or tutorial should be replaced by "how I." I love checking out step-by-steps and process work of other artists; it's fascinating to see how different we all are, and how other artists' brains work. And sometimes I learn a thing or two that could make my own art better. But when "this is how I do it" turns into "this is how you should do it," there's the potential for trouble.

I'm speaking as someone who loves looking at unique and one-of-a-kind art, and someone who loves reading books that don't follow a formula. I get disheartened every time I see a clique of webcomic artists who share the same style and every time I read a book that I feel like I've already read.

In the field of illustration, there are many valid professional reasons for emulating someone else's style. But the beauty of webcomics, self-published comics, and most novels is that they represent the creative vision of their individual writers and artists.

Unlike the big comic book publishers that choose a story based on marketing directives and hire people with good technical skills to churn them out, webcomics and self-published works come from a more natural origin. They are individual works of art; therefore I believe they shouldn't look like they came out of a corporate cookie cutter.

So technically, the title of this blog should be "How I read a how-to." And the way I do it is I treat it as an autobiography. If there are elements of it that are inspiring, I give them a shot. But I don't follow them step-by-step. I want to draw and write like me, not like the lite version of someone who wrote a tutorial.

Lame Female Characters

Types of lame female characters:

---The damsel in distress - comes in a wide variety of disgusting flavors.

---The damsel in imminent danger (she doesn't need to be saved *yet* - but she is a target, and the story revolves around the men keeping her protected. Lite version of the Damsel in Distress.)

---The woman who "stays at home" while the men go off to have an adventure (fyi, this includes the ever popular woman who insists on going with the men, is told to stay back, goes anyway, gets in trouble, and then has to be saved by the men)

---The static female character who exists as a foil so the dynamic male character can grow, develop, and find himself.

---The woman who exists as a pawn and/or bargaining chip to be used by the men of the story.

---The woman who is talented and useful - but NEVER as talented or useful as the men of the story

---The woman who is the constant supplier of fan service for male readers/watchers

---The woman who's included in the story just so the story would have a woman

---The token female in an ensemble. Descriptions of the main characters are usually along the lines of "shy and bookish Dave, charismatic overachiever Jon, witty slacker Steve, and sexy Valerie" - because "sexy" is the only character trait that many writers care to ascribe to women

---The woman who's dead before the story starts and is an idealized memory that symbolizes the male character's previously happy life.

---The lead woman who blindly and unconditionally supports/follows the lead male and doesn't have any aspirations of her own.

---The woman who falls in love with the hero, but the villain wants to marry her. (Sometimes female characters become sucky not just through their own personalities, but through the situations that the writer decides to put them in. See also: damsel in distress)

---The hysterical girl who does nothing but shriek and throw fits

---The woman who is a "female version" of one of the male characters

---The "sweet and gentle" girl. (She's good with children and animals. That's usually the extent of her character development.)

---The one-dimensional nurse/healer/nurturer (similar to the above)

---The fragile woman who breaks easily (always crying on the man's shoulder, seeking reassurance, unable to support herself emotionally)

---The woman whose sexuality is her main weapon. (Any woman for whom sexuality is their main weapon clearly doesn't have any other worthwhile talents.)

---The sheltered woman who waits around for a man to show her a "new world," an adventure, true love, etc.

---The woman whom aaaaall the men in the story have a crush on. (Usually the hero gets her; after all, that's why he's the hero. It's all about trophies and bragging rights.)

---The woman who represents negative female personality stereotypes - catty, manipulative, PMS-y, sets "traps" for the men, etc. - rather than *real* character flaws that aren't so misogynistic

---The beautiful woman who belongs to a society that's under attack by the male lead, who then falls in love with the male lead and convinces him to spare her people. (It all boils down to the woman being at the mercy of the man, and the woman only has an impact on the man because she's sexually attractive.)

---The beautiful and/or popular woman who's out of the male lead's league - but he gets her anyway. (Because men are supposed to win the prize, and women are supposed to settle.)

---The super awesome chick who, through the course of the story, transforms into any of the above. To me, this is the worst of all!

General Comments:

---For the most part, female characters are infinitely cooler, more realistic, and more capable in children's/young adult stories than they are in stories with an adult audience. I think one reason for this is because the characters themselves are often underage, so the writer doesn't have the option of turning them into sex objects. Also, many of those stories are actually written for a female audience. In the end, it's nice that so many children's and young adult novels teach girls that they are talented and capable, before they grow up and Hollywood tells them that they're worthless unless they're sexually attractive.

---Too often, when writers want to tell a story about a universal human condition, they use a male lead. When they want to tell a story about a female/feminine condition, they use a female lead. I wish more writers would use female leads to tell stories with universal meaning.

---Along those lines, movies with female leads are often automatically labeled "chick flicks." It suggests that regardless of theme, too many men have no interest in hearing about a woman's point of view. (For example, I don't know why so many people call Erin Brockovich a chick flick. How is it a "girly" story?)

---The women I know and like in real life are universally cooler than any fictional female I can think of (because so many female characters are written badly and are not based on any form of reality)

---There is a difference between a "cool woman" and a "cool female character." Interesting characters are not necessarily people you'd like or admire (or want to sleep with!) in real life.

---It's a lot easier to find cool female characters here on the ground level (self-published works). Somewhere between here and Hollywood/Marvel/DC/other major publishers, the cool girls get weeded out.

---Just for the record, there's ALSO a lot of really crappy male characters out there. But I'll let the guys talk about which male characters do them a disservice.

---In my opinion, it's better to have no female characters than to have only crappy female characters.

SUPER RARE and awesome things I'd like to see more of:

---Female leads who are not "girlfriend material." Books, movies, and comics have a wide variety of male characters, but it seems like all leading ladies are required to be cute, sexy, sweet, or otherwise the kind of girl that the average guy would want to sleep with

---Female leads who actually provide a unique talent or point of view to an ensemble, other than just providing the token female point of view

---Female characters who are realistically flawed. (And I'm talking about flaws other than "dumb blond," "sex worker," or other stereotypical crap.)

---Female anti-heroes

---Dynamic female characters who grow and go through a mental/emotional journey that has nothing to do with romantic love

---A female lead who doesn't have a crush, fall in love, have a significant other, or have a guy who's crushing on her

---A female character who is presented as a human rather than a woman

---Female characters who are as unique and varied as the women I know and talk to in real life

---Adventure stories with female leads - or basically any depiction of a woman having an actual adventure (that doesn't involve becoming a damsel in distress or needing a man to *give* her an adventure)

---Lesbians who are neither (a) villains out to destroy men, nor (b) essentially straight girls who kiss other girls just to turn guys on. (FYI, "lesbian" isn't a personality trait in and of itself. Too many writers think it is.)

(originally posted on my art blog)