Contemporary horror writers emphasize originality--that stories of traditional supernatural horror have become trite and repetitive--and have suggested ways writers can enhance originality. They point out that horror plots become repetitive; with under twenty basic gothic horror plots, it is easy for readers to lose the sense of tension since they already know which plot points to expect. Characters can also become stereotyped; the ghost, vampire, werewolf, Frankenstein-like monster, and other standard monsters have certain expectations surrounding them. Perhaps this is why the "good" "romantic vampire" has become such a popular character type.
Yet those who give writing advice also warn against writing against readers' expectation. If the "rules" of the vampire genre are altered, these writers may criticize the author for throwing the reader out of the story by interfering with the suspension of disbelief. Such a suspension can occur more often if the reader finds him/herself caught in a world both familiar and unfamiliar. Stephen King was a pioneer in placing traditional horror stories with their standard rules into the world of middle class America.
If a writer mixes genres (as Neil Gaiman does, winning awards in science fiction, fantasy, and horror for the same work), each genre maintains some stability of rules while the universe of these forms of speculative fiction is broadened. An example is in American Gods, in which the Norse gods are in the form of familiar human beings any person might pass by in the street. Yet such an attempt, brilliant as it is, my not fully bring out the horror in the old Norse legends.
Although I enjoyed reading American Gods (and as someone reared in Tennessee I found the location of Ragnarok at Lookout Mountain in Chattanooga, Tennessee humorous), I would never label it as a horror novel. I never felt a chill or feeling of fear, or even the mysterium tremendum et fascinans that one can feel while reading a book of horror (especially a good ghost story). Is there room in contemporary horror for lovers of traditional supernatural horror using the familiar tropes--as I am? Is there room for writers of such horror--as I am? How can one be a traditionalist in horror writing and still keep the fiction fresh?
Traditional horror is often rooted in myths that reach deeply into human fears. The ghost story probably dates back as far as animistic fears of dead ancestors returning to exact revenge. Vampires stemmed from deep fears about the corpse returning to life, fears stirred by a misunderstanding of the nature of decay in human bodies. I prefer to keep those myths in their traditional form--which I have not done so, I have found the reception of my work harmed.
Thus I suggest some ways to keep traditional horror stories fresh:
1. Keep your characters interesting. Write vivid characters, true to life, people that the reader can imagine meeting and with whom s/he could have a conversation. Write people you "know," including "combinations" of varioius people you know. I grew up around rural Southern people in middle Tennessee--those are the people I "know best," and those are the characters I write. Give your monster some unique traits--for example, given a ghost a twisted sense of humor. Write about a vampire with dull fangs. Little variations can make a big difference.
2. Write a story in the context of a fully developed world with a particular mythology that is dominant. For example, I write about a world in which the Christian mythology is true. If I wrote a Lovecraftean-like story, I can set it in that world. I have tried, though with difficulty, to combine a Lovecraftean mythology with a Christian mythology, in which the Christian God triumphs over the Old Ones. That tends to offend "purer" Lovecrafteans, and it is easier to stick to one mythology per short story or novel.
3. Use suspense to create and maintain tension. Although the reader may know the rules for how an evil vampire behaves, she should not know in advance whether the vampire will feed on its intended victim. Keep the tension up and do not reveal secrets too soon.
4. In some stories, a twisting or elevating of language can help to bring out vividness or set a mood of fear.
5. Keep your plots logical but unpredictable. Those seem like contradictory aims, but this is deceiving. Each plot point should flow from the logic of a previous plot point--but as we know, from the same circumstances the future can take many paths. Choose an unlikely, off the wall path that at the same time comes across as inevitable. This is difficult and requires much practice, but the author--and the reader--will be rewarded in the end.
Thursday, August 30, 2018
Thursday, December 21, 2017
Writing via Dictation vs. Typing vs. Pen/Pencil: The Instruments of Writing
Online gurus give you a lot of advice. I would never consider myself a guru, but if there is one complaint I have about "gurus," it is that their advice is often one-dimensional. Advice on writing is no different. Take, for example, the instrument you use to write. For example, you may write as I am writing now, using a type of word processor--in this case the one set up by Blogger. My guess is that most writers use word processors these days. Others, however, use pen and ink or pencil. The kind of notebook varies; many writers prefer legal pads. Others may buy high school or college-ruled notebooks from a discount store. Some poets like to write on a small notebook, while screenwriters often use index cards to write their scenes. Wendell Berry uses an old manual typewriter to write his novels, poetry, and essays. A newer method is to use voice recognition software that offers speech to text and dictate their work into a word processor. I once read a short book by a writer who argued that if you want to make lots of money on books, dictate as many small books as possible, carefully edit them, and submit them to sites such as CreateSpace. Are any of these methods better than others? The right answer is "It almost always depends..."
There are two things you should think about--first, what method or methods do you prefer, and in what genres do you write. On the first point, if you only like using a word processor to write and find that works for you, then by all means use it. If you exclusively use legal pads on which to write the first draft and then revise on word processor and that works well for you, keep using them. I prefer using different methods depending on (1) my mood, and (2) the particular genre in which I am writing. For example, I use Word for most of my writing and almost exclusively for academic writing. I remember the days of writing a draft of a paper on a legal pad and then typing it up on an electric typewriter. That was time consuming, and my typewriter did not have spell check. A speller and divider I bought helped a lot, and I recommend that any writer purchase a speller and word-divider in print form in order to have it at hand when you are working on a writing project.
In writing poetry I prefer to write the first draft by printing it in pencil or ink on any piece of paper I can find available. Usually legal pads work best for me since they have sufficient room to keep me from continually dividing long lines. I revise using Word. There are times, however, that I use Word for a first draft of a poem, and sometimes that works quite well. But if a poem comes to mind in a flash, I run, grab a pencil or pen and a notebook if I have one--even a napkin if I'm at a restaurant. (A well-known poet, who shall remain unnamed, said in a talk that he wrote lots of poems on bar napkins!). I suggest you try various combinations until you find one that works for you.
Regarding screenplays, you are going to have to map out scenes or you will end up with a piece of junk.. Although there are computer programs that do that, I prefer buying a pack of 4" x 6" index cards and writing a sketch for one scene on a side of the card, using front and back so I'm sure to get every scene onto that deck. This also allows me to reorder scenes by changing the order of the cards and inserting a card if I need to write a new scene. When actually writing the screenplay, you definitely need software that formats your screenplay in the correct style. Check out free programs first; if they work well, that will save you a great deal of money. I use celtx; others prefer alternative free programs--a great list is found at http://www.scriptreaderpro.com/free-screenwriting-software/. If this does not work for you, check the many options regarding paid screenwriting software.
I prefer Word for writing novels, since I can make corrections easily using a good word processor.. There are also several writing programs; Scrivener is quite good. I have tried writing on a legal pad, but it is painfully slow to me--but many successful authors use legal pads--again, you work with what helps you keep writing, since keeping writing and not giving up often distinguishes the successful from the unsuccessful writer.
I use dictation software when I am writing autobiographical material. It is easier, for me at least, to speak about myself and have the program put it in writing. If you are in a hurry or have an upcoming deadline, and especially if you can speak clearly and quickly, then dictation may be best, though be careful to edit your work! If a written first draft is usually crap, imagine how bad a spoken first draft might be.
I hope this has been helpful to all of you who write.
There are two things you should think about--first, what method or methods do you prefer, and in what genres do you write. On the first point, if you only like using a word processor to write and find that works for you, then by all means use it. If you exclusively use legal pads on which to write the first draft and then revise on word processor and that works well for you, keep using them. I prefer using different methods depending on (1) my mood, and (2) the particular genre in which I am writing. For example, I use Word for most of my writing and almost exclusively for academic writing. I remember the days of writing a draft of a paper on a legal pad and then typing it up on an electric typewriter. That was time consuming, and my typewriter did not have spell check. A speller and divider I bought helped a lot, and I recommend that any writer purchase a speller and word-divider in print form in order to have it at hand when you are working on a writing project.
In writing poetry I prefer to write the first draft by printing it in pencil or ink on any piece of paper I can find available. Usually legal pads work best for me since they have sufficient room to keep me from continually dividing long lines. I revise using Word. There are times, however, that I use Word for a first draft of a poem, and sometimes that works quite well. But if a poem comes to mind in a flash, I run, grab a pencil or pen and a notebook if I have one--even a napkin if I'm at a restaurant. (A well-known poet, who shall remain unnamed, said in a talk that he wrote lots of poems on bar napkins!). I suggest you try various combinations until you find one that works for you.
Regarding screenplays, you are going to have to map out scenes or you will end up with a piece of junk.. Although there are computer programs that do that, I prefer buying a pack of 4" x 6" index cards and writing a sketch for one scene on a side of the card, using front and back so I'm sure to get every scene onto that deck. This also allows me to reorder scenes by changing the order of the cards and inserting a card if I need to write a new scene. When actually writing the screenplay, you definitely need software that formats your screenplay in the correct style. Check out free programs first; if they work well, that will save you a great deal of money. I use celtx; others prefer alternative free programs--a great list is found at http://www.scriptreaderpro.com/free-screenwriting-software/. If this does not work for you, check the many options regarding paid screenwriting software.
I prefer Word for writing novels, since I can make corrections easily using a good word processor.. There are also several writing programs; Scrivener is quite good. I have tried writing on a legal pad, but it is painfully slow to me--but many successful authors use legal pads--again, you work with what helps you keep writing, since keeping writing and not giving up often distinguishes the successful from the unsuccessful writer.
I use dictation software when I am writing autobiographical material. It is easier, for me at least, to speak about myself and have the program put it in writing. If you are in a hurry or have an upcoming deadline, and especially if you can speak clearly and quickly, then dictation may be best, though be careful to edit your work! If a written first draft is usually crap, imagine how bad a spoken first draft might be.
I hope this has been helpful to all of you who write.
Tuesday, August 2, 2016
Violence in Horror
It is past time that horror writers and filmmakers tone down the level of violence in their works. I admit I have enjoyed my share of slasher films, but after a while the rolling heads, spilling guts, oozing brains, and bodies split down the middle get old. But lately some writers have become too lazy to build suspense, to do the difficult work of characterization and plotting, and write violence instead. Anyone with good descriptive skills who can paint an image in the readers' minds can write a violent scene. If violence is an integral part of the plot that is one thing--if it is only there as filler material for vacuous minds--that is another thing.
As movie special effects become more sophisticated, violent scenes have become more realistic, and makers of slasher films seed bigger and better special effects. They miss the fact that the movie Halloween, one of the finest films in the horror genre, had little explicit violence. Even the first Nightmare on Elm Street was restrained compared to today's horror/slashers, and it had a decent plot and characterization.
Contemporary filmmakers might respond that violence is what the audience wants, especially the younger audiences that make the bulk of horror/slasher fans. I have noticed this myself as a university professor--when I taught a class on philosophy and horror fiction, I would invite the students to watch a horror movie. They were only interested in the violent ones; a classic horror film such as the original version of The Haunting, did not interest them at all. One can legitimately ask whether the bloodthirstiness of today's students has formed a symbiotic relationship with contemporary horror/slasher films. Young people are becoming more violent due to many factors, but I doubt that watching more realistic slash-ups will alleviate their violence; it might even enhance it.
Though overdone on the violence aspect, the first Saw movie was saved by the deep moral implications regarding duties to self and other people. Would it be right to shoot an innocent person to save one's family? Yet after the first films, the others were redundant and were more bloodfests than anything else. I know the producers made money, and that's all that matters, right? Not when it comes to good writing and making a quality film. Keep your integrity and your soul, writers.
Movies such as Sinister and The Conjuring have brought back the old tradition of holding the audience in suspense until the monster (in the case of these films, a ghost and a demon respectively) appears. That involves suspense, but the presence of a monster brings in the horror element. I hope that trend continues.
As movie special effects become more sophisticated, violent scenes have become more realistic, and makers of slasher films seed bigger and better special effects. They miss the fact that the movie Halloween, one of the finest films in the horror genre, had little explicit violence. Even the first Nightmare on Elm Street was restrained compared to today's horror/slashers, and it had a decent plot and characterization.
Contemporary filmmakers might respond that violence is what the audience wants, especially the younger audiences that make the bulk of horror/slasher fans. I have noticed this myself as a university professor--when I taught a class on philosophy and horror fiction, I would invite the students to watch a horror movie. They were only interested in the violent ones; a classic horror film such as the original version of The Haunting, did not interest them at all. One can legitimately ask whether the bloodthirstiness of today's students has formed a symbiotic relationship with contemporary horror/slasher films. Young people are becoming more violent due to many factors, but I doubt that watching more realistic slash-ups will alleviate their violence; it might even enhance it.
Though overdone on the violence aspect, the first Saw movie was saved by the deep moral implications regarding duties to self and other people. Would it be right to shoot an innocent person to save one's family? Yet after the first films, the others were redundant and were more bloodfests than anything else. I know the producers made money, and that's all that matters, right? Not when it comes to good writing and making a quality film. Keep your integrity and your soul, writers.
Movies such as Sinister and The Conjuring have brought back the old tradition of holding the audience in suspense until the monster (in the case of these films, a ghost and a demon respectively) appears. That involves suspense, but the presence of a monster brings in the horror element. I hope that trend continues.
Tuesday, July 5, 2016
New Horror Novel Released: Obedience
What if Satan shape-shifts to look like Jesus? Would he fool you? He fools Sheldon Sprigg, a Fundamentalist preacher from Tennessee. Satan convinced Sheldon that the only way to save his mildly rebellious daughter, Ginny's, soul is by killing her. Now Ginny struggles to survive, with the help of her boyfriend Paul, her best friend Susie, her mother Elma, and an eccentric elderly neighbor, Herbert Miller. Can she live through both her father's and Satan's attacks? Will she be forced to kill her father to defend herself? Obedience has the answers.
In our own world, we have seen what harm toxic religion can do, from 9-11 to ISIS. Toxic religion, religion without love, law without grace, obedience only out of duty, damages people and places their loved ones, such as Ginny, in what seems to be a no-win situation. Trapped in a false world not of her making, Ginny must escape the trap of toxic religion before it destroys her and those she loves.
Purchase at WordCrafts Press, amazon.com, and other fine online booksellers.
www.wordcrafts.net/obedience
https://www.amazon.com/Obedience-novel-Michael-Potts-ebook/dp/B01GGXRQTC/ref=sr_1_1_twi_kin_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1467721387&sr=8-1&keywords=potts+obedience
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Writing from One's Background
No writer, no matter how experienced, ignores personal background and history in his or her work. Stephen King makes ample use of his working class background, for example, in his skilled characterization of ordinary people in his work. J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings cannot be adequately understood without understanding Tolkien's Roman Catholicism. One of many examples is the "lembas," "the way-bread," that Galadrial and Celeborn gave to the Fellowship of the Ring as they departed Lothlorien. In the Catholic tradition, the final communion wafer a person receives before death is called "the way-bread," the body of Christ to prepare for the journey across the threshold of earthly life into Purgatory and eventual Heaven. It is nourishment for an arduous journey. The Fellowship was going on an arduous journey to do what seems impossible--to destroy the One Ring of Power. The lembas, the way-bread, sustains Frodo and Sam and their final journey into the shadow of death as they face Mordor and Mt. Doom. The Catholicism would not be noticed by many non-Catholics, yet it is an integral part of Tolkien's story line.
My own work reflects my background and history--rural Tennessean, Southerner, traditionalist, being reared in the Churches of Christ (though later leaving), having a sister and two brothers, was close to my maternal granddaddy, etc. To understand this background aids someone to better understand my books, but is not required--the story should be what drives everything else. Didacticism has no place in good fiction. Yet all my novels are clearly Christian in tone and world view. That should be no surprise, and if I have focused sufficiently on plot and characterization, anyone, no matter what their background, can enjoy my novels. To the extent that I fall in the preachiness is the extent to which I have failed.
Use one's background creatively. Develop characters from people you have known and hopefully from those you have known well. Take events from your past or local events you remember and expand those into a story or novel. Combine several people you've known into one character. Add or remove details from your experiences in a way that you write unique scenes that fit into your novel. Seek out new experiences you enjoy to add more fuel to your idea file. Imaginatively place some of the events of your life into a past or future era and explore what happens. Your background and world view should be fuel that adds another dimension of meaning to your fiction.
My own work reflects my background and history--rural Tennessean, Southerner, traditionalist, being reared in the Churches of Christ (though later leaving), having a sister and two brothers, was close to my maternal granddaddy, etc. To understand this background aids someone to better understand my books, but is not required--the story should be what drives everything else. Didacticism has no place in good fiction. Yet all my novels are clearly Christian in tone and world view. That should be no surprise, and if I have focused sufficiently on plot and characterization, anyone, no matter what their background, can enjoy my novels. To the extent that I fall in the preachiness is the extent to which I have failed.
Use one's background creatively. Develop characters from people you have known and hopefully from those you have known well. Take events from your past or local events you remember and expand those into a story or novel. Combine several people you've known into one character. Add or remove details from your experiences in a way that you write unique scenes that fit into your novel. Seek out new experiences you enjoy to add more fuel to your idea file. Imaginatively place some of the events of your life into a past or future era and explore what happens. Your background and world view should be fuel that adds another dimension of meaning to your fiction.
A Review of UNPARDONABLE SIN by Tru Review Online
| ||||||
Saturday, December 8, 2012
A Novel Review: End of Summer by Michael Potts
A Novel Review: End of Summer by Michael Potts: Reviewed by Charlotte End of Summer is a story told by a grown man as he returns to his childhood home and recalls memories of the sum...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)