A moment of common sense...

Hi there, sorry that I've been missing for so long. In fact, writing this, I see I've been gone long enough that blogger's changed their layout, funny. It's not that I've run out of things to say - I've just been in self-imposed exile to work on another novel and focus on relaunching my first novel in a more organized fashion. Essentially, I'm hiding to lick my wounds. But, I had to come out and say something because two things that I'm really passionate about came together in a bad fashion and I just couldn't stay silent anymore: Gun Violence and Batman.

I'm not trying to make light of that by saying it that way, it seriously does bother me that Batman of all things became the scene of a crazed shooter. It's not because of the fact I'm a fan of Batman - it's because I'm a fan of kids. On that night in that theater, regardless of the rating of the movie or the fact it was midnight, there were going to be kids there because it was Batman. And you know what? There were.

This is Veronica Moser, 6 years old on the night some crazed gunman decked out in every weapon he could get his hands on in a couple months walked right into a theater and turned what was going to be an innocent and enjoyable event into the last moments of her life. She was there to see a movie about a hero and instead met a real life villain and a loser who couldn't deal with whatever the hell drove him over the edge. I'm not going to say his name, I'm not going to talk about what his possible motives might have been, I'm not even going to ask the stupid questions like "how could this man have gone so wrong?".

It doesn't fucking matter who this guy is because as of right now he is officially no one and hopefully he's going to stay that way for what's left of his miserable life. But you know who I do want to focus on? Ashley Moser:

This is Veronica's mother, still in critical condition the last I heard and asking about the status of her daughter. From the last report I saw...she doesn't know yet. Clinging to life, left on the verge of death by some loser with easy access to too much hardware and not enough supervision, she just wants to know if her daughter's okay. Could you blame them for not wanting to tell her what's happened? It's probably the only thing keeping her alive right now. But eventually they're going to tell her and she's going to have to go home (hopefully) and watch people talk about this event and what it means.

I was content with remaining quiet until I heard Representative Louie Gohmert from Texas say that the people in the theater were to blame for not carrying their guns into the theater. I apologize in advance to those sensitive to naughty language and, as a writer, I'm sure I could come up with something more abstract to say this. But once upon a time I was told a rather wise thing by another writer - strong words are strong words for a reason, don't ignore them, so here you have it:

Fuck you, Louie Gohmert, fuck you. That might not be polite or respectful, but there's nothing polite or respectful about blaming the victims in a situation like this. Oh, you assumed Colorado didn't have gun laws comparable to Texas? Fine. But when you're informed you're wrong about your assumption and then turn around and say they should have brought their guns to stop him, thus making it their fault? Fuck you.

I've seen and heard multiple times mow that the reason the midnight shooting at the TDKR screening happened was because there weren't enough guns there. I support the 2nd amendment because I don't think sane people should be banned from anything that doesn't bring harm to another person (such as hunting, target shooting, personal defense). But I need to say it somewhere or I'm going to explode.

Guys, there are 90 guns per 100 people in the United States, the highest number of guns per capita in the world, Colorado has concealed carry laws, the guy who attacked the place was able to purchase an AR-15, body armor and the materials required for improvised explosives freely and without restriction. The number of guns available in that region was not the problem, please stop saying that because you're just making the 2nd Amendment argument look stupid.

You want to support the 2nd Amendment? Here's something to consider: the 2nd Amendment says that a WELL REGULATED Militia is necessary to the security of the state. Right now our gun control is so lax that people on the Terror Watch list can still purchase a gun free and clear. Right now a guy can buy an AR-15 and 6,000 rounds of ammunition in a couple of months without ANYONE checking to see what he's doing with it. I'm not saying no guns for anyone, plenty of countries have guns without crazed killers running around. But let's have some common sense people!

I've heard from more than one person that "if more sane people had guns then the crazy people would get off fewer shots". Our rank in guns per capita says that's the wrong way to think about it. Sane people have guns and it's not working because sane people don't buy enough ammunition to clear a room and walk into a theater wearing body armor. So let me propose something: Let's stop worrying about sane people having guns and start worrying about the crazy ones having them. I like the idea of psyche evaluation for people who buy an assault rifle, take the guns away from the crazy people so they can't shoot the sane people. Reasonable?

It doesn't matter if you think there's a slippery slope that direction. You can't argue that more guns equal less deaths if we have more guns here than anywhere else in the world and stuff like this still happens. Protecting the 2nd Amendment means protecting people from assholes like the one that gunned down these people. Having the guns isn't doing it so find another way.

About now, I'd make a remark and leave a video to put a little spin on the end. Sometimes I tag in a music video because it punctuates what I was saying. But this feels like a time for a moment of silence to me. I'm still a nerd at heart though, so I leave you with a picture that's been going around the comic book communities for a couple days and, to me, fits the situation. I'm going back into exile for a while, nearing the time I'll start updating this regularly again, but for now, I leave you with what Veronica was expecting to find: Batman.

Everything Old Is New Again: Evolution of a Genre

A couple entries ago I spoke of how Hunger Games was, in fact, a bit derivative. But, as I stated then, that's a good thing. Holding onto conventions and rooting your works in the timeless aspects of the human experience is not only a benefit to your works but a necessity. And, because of this continual line that you can trace through works throughout time, you can follow this and see that old genres never really go away but rather evolve into something new. And evolution, regardless of context, can often be a strange force that can be hard for people to understand.

Proof of Karma?

This evolution is usually a result of adapting to the minute changes in society over time. For instance, if you were to look at early science fiction, when the scientific method had settled into a specific form and started to reject the spiritual aspects in precursors such as alchemy, you'd find those stories were really just contemporary takes on old fantasy stories long ago. Frankenstein is a beautiful example of a story that has been told or retold since the dawn of time - people using powerful forces to raise the dead.

In fact, Frankenstein is one of the best examples of the old cliche of "playing god" since, if you pay attention, all of the things that happened there in were touched on at least once in the bible. The key difference was that, for the first time, the powerful force in question was not a deity or magic but rather a natural force of nature. Science and magic were interchangeable for that story and the same can be said for many of the stories to follow. As the old saying goes: any suitably advanced technology will appear no different from magic.

Guys, it's just an iPad

But sometimes people don't recognize this evolution and instead consider their genre an isolated, closed system with no external forces applicable to it. During times of crisis they'll react by trying to put constraints on the genre so they can "play it safe". I think I've made it pretty clear in the past what I think of that concept, but I can understand why people may not see the evolution and how the additive changes wont destroy their genre, only alter it. One of the best (and easiest) examples of this is the comic book industry.

While the book industry is in some notable troubles and are struggling to find their footing in the digital age - the comic book industry is in something that people on the inside consider to be a death spiral. It's been on their lips for some time and spoken of in conventions as recently as this month when a panel declared they believed the superhero genre was dying.

Though it'll probably resurrect in time to promote the movie

Now, I could go on for some length about how the problems apparent in the industry have nothing to do with their genre, but that's another post all together. For now, let's focus on what's applicable here: genres don't die - they evolve. Right now sales are bad, but it's not because of the genre, it's for a lot of other reasons and, to make it clear how much it's not about genre: Superheroes were never a "genre" in the first place, they're a (for a lack of a better word, no pun intended) super-genre.

Disagree? Consider their origins.

In the 1930s there was a thriving comic book and comic strip industry with a variety of stories being published covering just about every genre you could imagine. During this time, a comic came out featuring the adventures of a man raised in the jungle using his wits, cunning and connection with the jungle to fight the forces of evil such as black magic, pirates and wild beasts. With the help of his animal friends and friendly natives he acts as the protector of the jungle. Was it Tarzan? No, it was The Phantom.

The Phantom was inspired by a combination of myths, legends and characters the likes of Tarzan and Zorro. Had he not been wearing purple long johns he probably would have just been regarded as a knockoff, really. But with the help of the costume he broke out as his own character and became something more than the sum of his parts. And this wouldn't be the last time Edgar Rice Burroughs left a mark on the fledgeling industry, John Carter of Mars left a giant footprint on it that still hasn't gone away.

The Barsoom series followed John Carter, a man transported to a world distant from his birthplace and living among people who appear similar to him but live in a drastically different environment. Thanks to being on an alien world drastically different to his birthplace, John Carter is given superhuman powers such as immense strength and agility. Using these powers, he defends the natives of this new world from hostile forces. Sound familiar? It should.

A lot of what's considered "Superhero" comics just originated from other genres and started to slowly fall into the giant blender until you couldn't tell the difference between them anymore. Hell, there's a reason why Batman is called the world's greatest detective.

So which of these "genres" is on the way out? It is true that a specific formula for these stories is probably in need of revamping and movement. The stories need to expand, they need to find new avenues and they need to move into plots that haven't been touched on before. The genre needs to move beyond simply violence for the sake of violence and tell stories once again. Recently, the writer of Static Shock for a period of time said that, during his time on the title, his writing duties were mostly taken from him by the editor and the artist who agreed that there needed to be "action on every page". That title has now been cancelled and has become another statistic to be added to the pile of failed projects in that industry.

The market has a tendency for natural selection, if you adapt to your environment you thrive, if you don't, you die. For instance, women have been a driving factor in a lot of the major successes of the book industry in the past decade and are a growing demographic in the comic book and graphic novel market. Knowing this, look at the picture below and see if you can understand what might be wrong with the "genre" at the moment.

And how is this related to writing in general? If something like superheroes can have its origins in sci-fi and fantasy works of the early 20th century, slowly altered over 80 years, and become something that is different enough that the people who work on it consider it a genre of its own, picture the evolution that happens when you make small changes over time to the genre you're working on. Picture the growth that can be accomplished by taking new risks with old genres and ideas. It could be as easy as changing one or two details, like putting Tarzan in a purple Speedo. Hell, even Frankenstein benefited from some additions.


Well, at first.

And what have I contributed to the evolution of the art form? My book! Buy please :)

Dangers of the Digital Age

As anyone reading this blog more than once could probably figure out, I'm a big supporter of digital formats being a way to bring the written word to the world quickly, cheaply and efficiently. There's a lot of strengths to the format and I've talked about them frequently. But, while every format has its strengths, it also has its weaknesses. One of the weaknesses, I'm afraid, is that there's no physical copy... who knew?

Now, of course, I knew this from the beginning and there's a lot of people who trumpet that in the first place as a reason why eBooks are bad. Though, I have to say, while it may be a weakness in some regards, it is a strength in others. For instance, you cannot burn an eBook, or the library they're in. Though, I have seen someone burn digital books as a form of protest once, so maybe that's incorrect. And sometimes, the "libraries" can actually burn themselves down.

But this isn't about reading eBooks so much as writing them. You see, you cannot produce an eBook manuscript on a typewriter. And, that whole fire image and the computer burning itself down? That kind of happened to me this past weekend. Not to say that it actually set itself on fire, but suddenly a portion of it decided it would actually, literally, burn out. At around 1 am last Thursday, or the crack of "second wind" as I like to call it, my power supply decided that it just did not want to function anymore and died.

Now, like anyone that's ever worked with a computer instead of a typewriter, I save religiously. But I never actually imagined my computer would decide to teach me the smell of burnt capacitor. Though I will now always know that smell - it wasn't exactly the lesson I took away from the situation. And what lesson did I take away from it? Always have backups!

Not just backups of the files but backups for the hardware too. If you're a writer and you've got a large project you're working on, make sure that, in the case your computer decides to show you it's paperweight impression, you have another computer of some sort to go to. A week without your word processor is that sad little week where you get to sit around and realize that you're trying to make a living off of writing elaborate bullshit for other people that effectively ceases to exist the minute the copies disappear.


Now imagine they downloaded your book a thousand times on iBooks before doing this. Enjoy the drinking problem!

Help me avoid my drinking problem and show your support by helping me pay for the power supply I had to install to replace Nibbles up there, Buy my book!

Everything Old is New Again: The Generation Gap

Last week, I went over some things I've seen or heard from writers, critics and even the audience about the relationship between the creators and their audience. The contract, the acceptance of new words and even the idea that there were no new ideas. But, when addressing "no new ideas" I came to think about it and realize that there was still something to be said about that. I've already expressed my opinion on the concept that there were "no new ideas", but there are facets that I didn't think to talk about at the time.

Namely: Why is it that an idea that clearly has roots in conventions has managed to surpass others of its kind?

One of the things I often hear about Hunger Games is how relevant to the times it is and how it reaches to the current generation and the culture they live in. The people who bring this up often talk about how Hunger Games easily mirrors our culture and our obsession with reality TV shows and how this would not have been relevant at any other time. Except, you know, when the Running Man did a similar concept to take a shot at game shows.

Arnold is unsure how he became a prize in the showcase, the 80s were hazy for him

But a dystopian future where society is controlled by a select few people that happen to be lucky enough to live in the upper class is something that touches on the fears of the modern day. Occupy Wall Street, the Tea Party and all of the little movements in between are a driving factor in our society today which the audience can relate to. Sure, similar concepts of an oligarchy controlling the lives of the masses were featured in Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four but that was written in 1949 and directed at a completely different culture.

Nineteen Eighty-Four was written in a starkly different environment. They had just come out of a long, harsh war that the US was dragged into by an...attack on US soil... carried out by... suicidal pilots. But there were also worries of foreign countries plotting against American interests while studying dangerous sciences that could result in... nuclear proliferation. But, wait a moment, most importantly there was a driving fear among the people about the battle of ideologies between capitalism and...communism.

Okay, fine, so the concept isn't uniquely targeted towards the generation of today and these ideas have all shown up before back when there was something remotely similar. Hell, the author even admits that the concept was rooted in things that had happened during the Roman Empire ages ago. So if that's not the thing that is driving it then it has to be the teenage romance taking part in it. After all, the teenage romance has worked wonders for the trendy things in the last couple of years. Except... Hunger Games is actually doing better in the box office than Twilight right now too...

Well shit, what is the unique element that makes this thing successful right now? Why is it doing better than other things that have used similar concepts in the past? What is it that makes it unique enough to have this much power behind it?

Timing.

A lot of times people forget that, despite the fact they may have seen the idea before, not everyone has. The Running Man was made before most of the audience of the Hunger Games had even been born, some of them having been born and too young to remember anything about it. Nineteen Eighty-Four was created before some of their grandparents had even been born. Hell, it was created before our President was born. And in the end, it doesn't have to be uniquely relevant, it just has to be relevant at all. People and ideas can be worthwhile for the same reasons in two different eras.

Though sometimes the classics are still better

And if you were to present some of these older works to them, they would likely notice that there was a relevancy to aspects of their life too, likely colored a bit by the eras they were created in, but having a timeless nature of echoing their fears and their life experience. As I pointed out last time, the one constant in fiction that works is human nature, an element which has not changed since the dawn of civilization.

Oh, sure, the labels change, the images change, but the basic concepts of what drives us never do. Centuries ago they may not have had communism to worry themselves over, but they did have monarchies which had a pretty similar effect of "the ruling class has absolute control". They didn't always have a fear of an apocalyptic war, but they did have war in general. And sure, they didn't have nuclear weapons, but they had Vikings...which you have to admit would have made people shit themselves in the same fashion.

A picture says a thousand words and still doesn't cover this story

Often I've heard of middle aged editors rejecting a concept presented to them because it's like something that they had read in the past. My first ever submission to a magazine was rejected based on the concept that they had seen similar stories to it in the past. Now my concept is still around and magazines are not, so which of them is more timeless? Oh, and for those of you who are unsure what a magazine is, here's a picture.

I'm not saying don't strive for originality or new ideas, but keep this in mind, no matter what you do, always try to keep things relevant to the modern conversation and you'll have a chance of catching their attention. Thankfully, this should be easy since you live in this world and can take note of the things that keep you awake at night.


I just hope Iran never gets them.

As for me, I think my book touches on quite a few social issues. But you'd have to buy it to know for sure. (I just touched on greed ^_^)

Inherent BS: Writing Tips - Contract?

This may come as a shock to you, but I'm not just a writer, I'm a gamer. Go figure, right? But the thing about it is that recently the two worlds have been merging more and more as games with real plots have started to become the standard bearers for the rest of the industry. Writing for games has actually, in some studios, become respectable. And at the forefront of a lot of this was a game series called Mass Effect.

And then they fucked it up.

I'm not saying that as a judgment of the quality of their last game but rather as a judgment of their position in the eyes of their fans. You see, if you're unaware, there was a bit of a controversy not long ago about the release of the final game in the trilogy, Mass Effect 3. The ending for this game was apparently so counter to what the fans expected that there was what could be called a... nuclear meltdown. The fans of the series, at least a large portion of them, have said they felt betrayed by the results of Mass Effect 3's last 10 to 20 minutes of game time. How betrayed? Well one person actually reported them to the Federal Trade Commission for, apparently, fraud.

Even the characters are confused

Now, I don't want to sound callous about this: I understand that buying the whole trilogy to get to that point means you've spent hundreds of dollars and countless hours of your time to meet that one moment of resolution. If you're angry that resolution was lackluster then it's your right to be angry. But one thing that I've seen repeatedly brought to the front of this argument is a so called "reader-writer contract".

To say that I, as a writer, was shocked to find out that there was a contract would be an understatement. In fact, I looked around, I wasn't the only one. Turns out, the only people who were taking this "reader-writer contract" seriously were the fans and the hand-full of writers who actually proposed this concept on their blogs. Yeah, you read that right, someone was holding writers to the standards of someone's blog.

Typical blogger in a nutshell

Now, if you're part of the writing community, you'll inevitably take to starting a blog and then using that blog to discuss writing. This is basically how our people operate and communicate with each other and the world at large (while also whoring out our books: see here). But I, for one, don't think that anyone should be obligated to follow what I'm saying here on this blog except for me. If I don't follow it, I'm a hypocrite. If someone else doesn't follow my ramblings, they have a mind of their own.

But somewhere along the line, the concept that there was a "reader-writer contract" actually bled into the consciousness of the viewing public. I had to find this thing and come to understand just what exactly it was I was obligated to follow. Apparently, according to the ME3 controversy, we've all signed this thing. And in the course of being handed this argument, someone gave me a version of this reader-writer contract for me to see. Let's just say I have some problems with it.

Let's take a look, shall we? For the sake of not outing which version of this I've been handed, I'll avoid linking it and will paraphrase. For the sake of space, I'll only address the ones I have reason to disagree with.

The Author will treat the reader as intelligent. Do not resolve everything for the reader, leave things for them to resolve themselves

This one is actually common sense. You don't belittle your audience because a belittled audience is an angry audience. But the thing about not resolving everything for them becomes troublesome when you realize that the writer is now obligated to predetermine the intelligence level of their readers. This, of course, requires you to be not only psychic but have a machine which could let you read the minds of every reader on the planet.

Needless to say, this is not something you can achieve for everyone in everything. You are going to, at some point, insult someone's intelligence because either A) you yourself did not feel you would have figured it out on your own or B) you were concerned that the stuff you left lying around was too subtle because none of your test readers had noticed it. I had this problem myself when one of my test readers missed every clue in my book (see here) when the other 4 test readers actually figured it out independently at various other points throughout the book. Ironically? This reader who didn't figure out a key part of the book repeatedly told me that they felt they didn't need to be told other things.

"That damned machine told me it would work"

Conclusion? People are different, this part of the contract is nearly impossible.

The story will follow the conventions of the genre it claims to be

This one ticked me off the most due to my personal experiences with figuring the genre of my own book. You see, I had written it as something you could consider a supernatural mystery, but there was a lack of magical and I had gone out of my way to deal with these creatures as something tangible. Was it fantasy, science fiction, mystery or crime? I honestly didn't know. For a couple days I spent time studying the conventions of the different genres to figure out just where exactly I fit. I knew I could choose two on most of the venues I could ePublish, but which ones to choose took some time.

Mystery? Sci-fi? Taking a theme too far? You decide!

Did I pick the right ones? I'm still not 100% sure. And if someone disagrees with me, should I be reported to the FTC?

Conclusion? Doesn't really respect the fact genres are subjective.

The style of your first page or scene will be the style of your whole story. If you start off funny, it will stay funny.

Your first page apparently will be everything that you ever do, apparently. If you start off something lighthearted and gradually move towards a darker outcome or write a story about someone with crippling depression managing to move on past it towards a better outlook on life...you've violated the contract. The first scene of my book, proper, involves my character under cover in a ridiculous outfit. Later in the book he starts to have a breakdown over the fact he doesn't know who he can trust anymore and is tormented by the fact he may not know what to believe anymore.

According to the people who've read by book...the first scene is pretty funny and a few later scenes are terribly sad. There are humorous instances and one liners peppered throughout the rest of the story, but it doesn't maintain one mood throughout. According to this contract, that's a no-no.

The Joker is either confused or a deal breaker, we're not sure.

Conclusion? I wasn't aware we were required to make our characters two dimensional.

There are more parts to this "contract" but I think I've made my case. When I protested against the idea that I should be held to this contract, specifically because of the points listed here, I was told that my protest meant I thought everyone should happily read crappy stories without saying a word. That's bullshit. Here is the true reader-writer contract, the only one that all readers and writers are obligated to.

1) The Writer will try their very best not to write something that will be hated by the majority of the people

2) The Reader will show their support to what they like and will not show their support to what they don't like

3) Everyone will buy my book as stated in this contract, else all things shall be void and writers across the world will write horrible pieces of crap until the end of time

Sign Here_______

(no, that doesn't count as blackmail)


If they can do it, so can I.

Inherent BS: Writing Tips - No New Ideas?

The Hunger Games film has come out and it is currently doing spectacularly. In it's opening weekend it managed to beat the first film in the Twilight Saga and several of my more feminist minded friends have cheered the fact that the current fad among teen girls happens to be centered on what can easily be defined as a strong willed, self sufficient and capable female lead that isn't constantly helpless or tripping over herself.

This is progress people.

But along the way there are some criticisms to be addressed. Namely, the basic premise of this story is stitched together from the styles, conventions and plot lines of other works through the last few decades. One that springs to the top of the list quite easily is Battle Royale, a story about a group of teenagers abducted and forced into mortal combat for someone's twisted purposes. This is really fucking similar. In fact, it's also really similar to quite a few stories through the ages.

Pictured: Proof that Hunger Games and Battle Royale are very different

Some people have credited this as being different from Battle Royale by the fact it really strikes out at the culture of Reality Television that's risen in the recent years. But then, if you take that into account, it's actually quite similar to other stories even there too. At one time, I broke down an explanation of the plot to a friend as "Picture The Running Man if Arnold were a teenage girl and was fighting other teenagers for survival without the light bright costumes".

I shit you not, this man was supposed to be the scariest thing anyone had ever encountered

So when it boils down to it, it's kind of the product of years of cultural development being stirred together in a pot and set to simmer. There's nothing wrong with that from a certain vantage, mind you, but it is a criticism leveled at the whole thing by the people who like to find criticisms. This, in itself, is not something I have a problem with.

What I do have a problem with is the defenses that have been shot back at these criticisms. Though they come in many flavors, they all say the same thing "there are no new ideas anymore."

What life would look like if we had no new ideas

So why the hell are any of us writing anymore if there's nothing left to write?

The truth is that there's a loss of perspective. If you watch Battle Royale and watch Hunger Games back to back, you wouldn't walk away with the impression you'd seen the same story twice. The same would go for Running Man to Hunger Games. In fact, you'd find that if you watched any good works that had similar plots you'd find that you rarely felt like they were really "ripping off" each other. The reason is because a lot of people mistake what exactly is the aim of telling stories.

An original idea is great, but you have to make that original idea something compelling to the reader. If you have nothing but an original idea, something that I recall pointing out was a mistake back during my "new sci-fi" rants, then you've really kind of missed the point. Your ideas aren't enough, there has to be a story. And when you have that story, you have to realize that people are going to read this and are going to be deciding the virtue of your story based on the things they can relate to rather than the things they cannot. In other words, if your idea is too original (read: nonsensical), people are going to hate it.

Plot? No. Characters? No. Original method of flashing lights and colors at people? Yes.

Like with everything, there's always a balancing act. You can't make something too much in one direction or another. If something is too derivative you'll find people are bored with it because they've heard the story before. If something is too original they'll be bored with it because they have no idea what's going on or what they're supposed to feel about it. Regardless of what genre you're writing, you end up having to write about something that could relate to your audience and their feelings. In other words, your story will never be 100% original because, regardless of effort, it has to feature something that can be recognized as the human experience.

"Remember that time you were lobotomized and had that crazy dream you were a stripper that fought robot samurais in a mini-skirt? That was a wild summer."

There are plenty of ideas still left out there, in fact if you took a book from today and transported it back no more than half a century they'd think that some of the things you wrote about were signs you'd gone insane.

"Why is this character talking to someone else on a screen they hold in their hands?"

"What is this nonsense about electrical cars?"

"A black man as president? The hell you say."

The problem is that if you wrote about nothing except the new ideas, you'd be left with a story so abstract and inhuman that it would only fit in among what many artists would call "avant garde". Here, have a taste:



I know what you're thinking about now: "What the fuck did I just watch?" The answer, as I just said, was avant garde. Unique, wasn't it? You see, the problem with Avant Garde in any form is that it is inaccessible by anyone who's not part of the avant garde mindset. No one would really pay good money to see 2 hours of what you just saw in the video above. No one would buy a book to read about...whatever the hell that was. And that's what you'd end up with if you didn't have some sense of convention to wrap around your original idea.

And that thing about conventions, sometimes, it's okay to remember that there are elements of a story that, even if you could come up with an original alternative, should be left as is. For instance, if you're doing a sci-fi story set in space it is perfectly acceptable to use a space ship at some point. Yes, I know that someone else has done it before, but what else are you going to send them in, a school bus?

It would be original, to say the least, but no one would take your story seriously while picturing the bus flying among the stars. And so you have to be accepting that sometimes there will be elements that will always be present. As I told my friend during a conversation on this topic, everything good is mostly written to build on top of what others have done already, adding new things to the top of the old.

Hell, the line I just said is pretty much the basis of the age old "standing on the shoulders of giants" quote. Without radio there would be no television and without television there would be no computer monitors to read this on. Without John Carter, there probably wouldn't have been a Star Wars or Superman. Which, by the way, is one of the reasons you should show love to John Carter too. I hear it's still about 200 million in the hole.


And to show my originality, 2 videos this time.

Inherent BS: Writing Tips - Don't Make Up Words?

There's a piece of common wisdom that has been around the writing community forever, especially in the sci-fi and fantasy groups. It is so old and so frequently echoed that I can't even remember who first said it because every time you hear it someone presents it as something they came up with themselves. It changes from person to person, but the basic concept is always the same:

"Don't create new words"
That's it - clean, clear and simple. So, of course, that's what you should strive to do, right? You should make every effort to avoid making up a new word if you can because the act of creating new words is the mark of an amateur that will live in obscurity for the rest of time. You know, like Shakespeare.

That hack introduced over 1700 words to the English language over the course of his career that we still use today. You think it's hard to understand while reading it now? Back then people had never even heard most of these words, such as:

Addiction
Alligator
Bedroom
Belongings
Bloodstained
Coldhearted
Disgraceful
And countless other words you've probably heard on the street or in a rap song. So of course, as you can clearly see, it's dangerous to make new words because if you do you'll be forever forgotten and unwanted for the rest of eternity, just like Shakespeare.

Oh, wait, that's right: Shakespeare is god damned legendary now and is used as a measuring stick for which many other writers are measured against either seriously or in jest. "He's no Shakespeare" is so damn common a phrase that he technically ended up continuing to invent phrases even after his death. So where do people get off telling you not to try to invent something?

Well this, like most common wisdom, is bullshit created by two things: watching someone do it badly and deciding that's how everyone's results will turn out. If anyone screws up, for any reason, you'll notice that people have a tendency to assume that the reason it failed was because it was done and not how it was done.

Many of the people who analyze writing and make judgments on the way things should be done are only applying their experiences and deciding those apply to the rest of the world. Even when I'm saying something here, I'm applying something that I believe is universal. And, in my mind, the universal solution is that there is no universal solution. Everyone will approach everything as it best suits them. All we can really do is show each other what we have learned and tell them how to avoid problems, rather than avoiding actions.

Shakespeare, clearly, managed to create thousands of words and phrases over his career and he suffered no consequences for this "crime" in the eyes of history. If you feel like you should do it too, then you should. if only to be true to yourself. A lot of authors who give advice today feel they're in a position to give advice, that you should follow their lead because they're ahead of you somewhere. But if you're going to aim to be an author, why not aim for Shakespeare?

Not that way

Some would think that aiming to be like Shakespeare is arrogant. A lot of people in our society chase fame and fortune. Just as many condemn people who want to be famous. But remember that chasing fortune doesn't necessarily mean chasing riches. Sometimes it's chasing the ability to be considered fortunate. And, if that is the case, if you aim high and fail you'll find yourself still above average. If you aim low and fail, you'll eat pavement. Besides, aiming high has worked for others.

Consider the classic authors and how many of them created a word or used one that hadn't been used for ages. Mithril, quark, nerd, robotics, cyberspace and even the term tween (which you can't escape anymore) were all words cooked up to fill a need in an author's work. But notice what works about these and what doesn't about others. When you look at some ridiculous words like "teleojuxtaposition", "granfalloon" or "speelycaptor".

Seriously, sit there and try to read that first one out loud and you'll see exactly what the difference is. It's not just about the difficulty of saying it, but about how jumbled it sounds when you do say it. These things completely lack musicality. (a word made up in the mid 19th century, by the way)

Perhaps the lesson that should be taught isn't "don't make new words" but rather "if you make new words, make sure they don't sound like crap." This seems like a simple concept because it is. If you're going to make up a new word, make sure you can say it and that other people can say it too. If it sounds like a mouth-full, it is, and no one is going to want to say it with you. It's a handy rule of thumb, don't you think?

Though, sometimes, it's not the word

So be bold, take risks and be creative when you find a situation that might be deserving of a new word. Test it out, make sure it works for people other than you, but don't be afraid to experiment when you see the opportunity. After all...


Someone has to come up with this shit.