I have run into a most unusual problem.
I am writing a story that I wanted to write because it was interesting to me. It is a piece that pushes my boundaries as a writer in a new way. It is something that I said I would never write because the market is over-saturated with the subject, but I was inspired and have taken the subject matter in a different direction from anything that I have ever seen.
No, you can't know what it's about yet. It's not even on the "My Books" page here because I have just under a chapter written as of this blog post and I don't wanna spoil it.
Anyway, the main character, I guess she is the protagonist, insofar as you could say that this particular story has one, is going through hell. She is a good person, overall. She comes from a well-to-do family but she chooses to be different, to not be the spoiled brat that everyone expects her to be. So she has this major change of heart very early on in the story.
She is a likable character. I like her. I like writing her. I have liked giving her a past, despite her future currently looking very, VERY bleak.
And this brings me to the problem. I have gotten accidentally attached to her. I tried very hard to just tell myself that she is a work of fiction, that she exists in my head and that she is not real. Her suffering is not real. Unfortunately, to me, when I am writing about her, she is as real as I am.
And I like her.
So my dilemma basically boils down to the fact that she is essentially being tortured by the story. Bad things happen, very bad things, and she suffers greatly throughout the novel. That makes it sound very dark and horrible, but there's no other way to describe her situation without spoiling the book. I guess that I can clarify that it is not literal torture, but the events that happen are torturous to read.
And very hard to write.
As I said in my previous blog, I have a set of core beliefs that define who I am underneath all the pompous swagger and posturing that I seem to put on. I'm not a bad person. I don't advocate violence towards others. Or violence in general. But this story is brutal and graphic. I have done a lot of research, still am doing some of that research, and the gritty realism I hope, will show through in the work. And I am not ashamed to be writing this at all. It is an interesting story and her suffering is not brought on by another person, technically, unless you count me.
My problem is that I have connected with this character, despite knowing that she isn't real to anyone but me. I feel that I have portrayed her and built her up in my head enough to make her believable and I hope that it will translate well into the story. That is the ultimate goal for any story, right? Anyway, I am sitting here with my notes, with my story for this person - I am gonna call her Jane Doe for now - and I am having a difficult time.
Jane doesn't deserve what I am writing about. Jane is a relatively good person. She does things with altruism in mind and even when things are at their worst, she is thinking about other people, rather than herself.
So here I sit, staring at this work that I am putting so much thought and love and care into, knowing that part of the story will be exposition with the intent to make my readers love Jane Doe as much as I do, and then the brutal, life changing problem arises and your hearts all break. That is the goal. I want to give a different perspective, but in order to do this, I have to suffer along with Jane.
And I AM suffering. I am having so much trouble writing this part that I can only manage to write maybe a paragraph at a time. I never really thought of myself as a delicate person, or that I have 'delicate sensibilities' but there are things that honestly make my stomach turn. And writing this sad, heartbreaking part of the story is one of them.
The point, I suppose, is that I am looking for advice.
How do you distance yourself from a character you have made and love and is only (currently) real to you so that you can sleep at night? And how shall I distance myself enough from her to keep going on with the story without making myself cry?
I KNOW the suffering isn't real. I KNOW that Jane Doe isn't real. I KNOW that this is fiction, and that I am the one creating this world and this story, and that I could, theoretically change it at any time, but I am still connected. I am still allowing it to happen in my own megalomaniac sort of way.
So how do I make this bearable to write?
Thoughts on writing. Short stories. Swearing and ranting. All at your fingertips.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
It's the Principle of the Thing...
Like most people, I have a very core set of beliefs that define who I am. These beliefs define my faith (or faiths, as it were) and direct my moral compass. I like to think that everyone has these beliefs, though they are not all 100% identical to mine. And I will be the first to admit that once in a while, my moral compass behaves very much like the magical compass that Jack Sparrow has in Pirates of the Caribbean. Those are moments that I am not very proud of, however, it happens. There's nothing that I can do about it, really, except maybe apologize when it's needed.
Now, these core beliefs, without getting into religious debate, are fairly basic. I don't advocate violence towards children. I don't advocate violence towards anyone. I believe in self-reliance. I don't advocate violence towards animals. I believe that everyone is created equally regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or anything else that you could possibly discriminate against someone with. I believe that everyone deserves the basic necessities for life. I believe that everyone has basic human rights that should be observed at all times.
Pretty basic things.
But I notice that a lot of people don't seem to have these same moral compass points. I am reminded today of this by the "outrage" over a specific character in the movie adaptation of "The Hunger Games" who was cast as a black child actor. Apparently, people were angry because they all envisioned this person as "angelic" which apparently translates to "blonde hair, white skin, blue eyes" or something similar. In the book (I have not read it, but I read the excerpt) this character was described as having "dark skin" or something similar to that description.
To me, that denotes darker than Aboriginal or Middle Eastern. Typically of African heritage.
I am aghast and disgusted by this outrage. When did it matter? When did our society get so bigoted? Are we going to regress back to segregation? Are we gonna start discriminating against the Irish next?
I'll admit that I have written characters with shaky morals. I have written some hurtful things IN CHARACTER. I have created, in my mind, horrible situations for people to be put in. I have written many of these things and have hoped to get certain bits of this work published.
But I wrote it in a work of fiction.
Does that make it okay? No.
Am I ashamed about it? No.
Do I believe any of what I wrote? HELL no.
I feel that we have to face our darkness if we ever expect to reach enlightenment. I have difficulty reading certain things. And I have more trouble writing them. Extreme violence is one. Racism is another. But I have pushed myself in order to grow as a writer. I still don't advocate it, but strife and conflict is what makes stories interesting.
Maybe, we ought to look at what really makes us tick and consider our beliefs a little more before we begin to pass judgement on others for being different.
Now, these core beliefs, without getting into religious debate, are fairly basic. I don't advocate violence towards children. I don't advocate violence towards anyone. I believe in self-reliance. I don't advocate violence towards animals. I believe that everyone is created equally regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or anything else that you could possibly discriminate against someone with. I believe that everyone deserves the basic necessities for life. I believe that everyone has basic human rights that should be observed at all times.
Pretty basic things.
But I notice that a lot of people don't seem to have these same moral compass points. I am reminded today of this by the "outrage" over a specific character in the movie adaptation of "The Hunger Games" who was cast as a black child actor. Apparently, people were angry because they all envisioned this person as "angelic" which apparently translates to "blonde hair, white skin, blue eyes" or something similar. In the book (I have not read it, but I read the excerpt) this character was described as having "dark skin" or something similar to that description.
To me, that denotes darker than Aboriginal or Middle Eastern. Typically of African heritage.
I am aghast and disgusted by this outrage. When did it matter? When did our society get so bigoted? Are we going to regress back to segregation? Are we gonna start discriminating against the Irish next?
I'll admit that I have written characters with shaky morals. I have written some hurtful things IN CHARACTER. I have created, in my mind, horrible situations for people to be put in. I have written many of these things and have hoped to get certain bits of this work published.
But I wrote it in a work of fiction.
Does that make it okay? No.
Am I ashamed about it? No.
Do I believe any of what I wrote? HELL no.
I feel that we have to face our darkness if we ever expect to reach enlightenment. I have difficulty reading certain things. And I have more trouble writing them. Extreme violence is one. Racism is another. But I have pushed myself in order to grow as a writer. I still don't advocate it, but strife and conflict is what makes stories interesting.
Maybe, we ought to look at what really makes us tick and consider our beliefs a little more before we begin to pass judgement on others for being different.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Writing Processes...
I see a very common topic pop up all over writing blogs or blogs written by authors. Each person's "Writing process". It can be as in-depth or as vague as they want, and they always promote these blogs in particular. The processes vary so much from one writer to the next. I don't think that there is any one true way to write or one process that's better than the next. Others will probably argue with me, but I think everyone has their own style and their own unique thought process that might help inspire others to write more or to look at their own unique writing process. And almost everyone I follow, admire read etc. has posted a blog like this at one point.
Okay, not everyone. Some people. And if not a blog, at least an idea or a theory on Twitter or Facebook. Advice, even.
I have a few thoughts of my own and a very specific process that I go through, and I am not here to say one process is better than the next, but I thought that I would share my process with you here today.
First in my writing process is a very simple step. I call it "Get an Idea." Usually these Ideas come at 3 a.m. or when I am trying to sleep. I am a mild insomniac (as I'm writing this I have been awake for 39 hours solid.) 3 a.m. is a very familiar time for me. But I digress. You have to get an Idea. Yes, Idea must be capitalized because that is the important part.
The next step is also really simple. Start by writing down your Idea. I have a notebook or sticky notes by my bed at all times because those Ideas show up at random times and I must immediately write them down. Then, when I have slept (or had a lot of caffeine) I can start building upon the Idea.
Which of course, is step three. Build your Idea. It's really simple! Look at the Idea. Let's use an example... "a monkey eats a banana that gives him magical powers." It's a pretty simple Idea. Once that is written down, and you have slept, had caffeine and are able to focus entirely on your Idea, you can start building on it. Ask yourself the important questions. "Who is this monkey?" "Why does he need powers?" "Where did the banana come from?" "What does he use his powers for?" etc. By asking these important questions, you should be able to move onto step four.
Build a timeline. Incorporate all your Ideas and answers to your questions. Let's assume the badguy is a plumber and the monkey is in love with a princess. But the plumber is in love with the princess too. The time line looks like this: Monkey sees princess- monkey falls in love -princess is in love with plumber - monkey eats bananas to drown his sorrow - gets powers - kidnaps princess - plumber comes to save his girl - big fight - the plumber wins -the end. You need to flesh out each portion, but once those steps are established, you can see your story taking shape.
Step five is to actually write the story. Fill in the holes, build the world, describe things. That's the fun part. Just do it. I'll wait.
Step six is editing. I usually give myself a few weeks off after finishing a novel before I begin editing. I don't agree with the "set your story aside for up to three months" method of editing. When I have an idea I want it out and perfected as soon as possible. Editing is the HARDEST part for me. I hate it. I hate the whole process. I am a perfectionist so everything SHOULD be perfect on the first go. But when I get into it, I can make those changes to make it perfect. I edit everything at once, make it perfect and THEN leave it. You can do this step however you like, but for me, getting the editing done once the story is told is the best way to get on with it.
From here, the process gets messy because so many people will tell you to do different things. Beta readers, critique groups, agents, whatever. You do what feels right to you. I am partial of having an outside opinion, a friend or my partner or even my sister, read the story in it's entirety and take notes and tell me what was good (or bad) and then I can consider and revise as needed.
I don't think that the creative process should be much harder than it already is. You put your heart and soul into your world. You give the characters life already, why make it more difficult than it needs to be? This is how I work. I suppose you'll have something different in the process, and who the hell am I to tell you how to write YOUR story? So go on, write. Because, I know that if you're anything like me, you'll NEED to.
Kai Kiriyama is an insomniac. This was written during 40 hours of awake time. She may be clinically insane now, but you'll still love her.
As always, you can find her on Twitter at @thekiriyamaheir and her email is thekiriyamaheir@gmail.com or you can find her on Facebook at: facebook.com/AuthorKaiKiriyama.
Okay, not everyone. Some people. And if not a blog, at least an idea or a theory on Twitter or Facebook. Advice, even.
I have a few thoughts of my own and a very specific process that I go through, and I am not here to say one process is better than the next, but I thought that I would share my process with you here today.
First in my writing process is a very simple step. I call it "Get an Idea." Usually these Ideas come at 3 a.m. or when I am trying to sleep. I am a mild insomniac (as I'm writing this I have been awake for 39 hours solid.) 3 a.m. is a very familiar time for me. But I digress. You have to get an Idea. Yes, Idea must be capitalized because that is the important part.
The next step is also really simple. Start by writing down your Idea. I have a notebook or sticky notes by my bed at all times because those Ideas show up at random times and I must immediately write them down. Then, when I have slept (or had a lot of caffeine) I can start building upon the Idea.
Which of course, is step three. Build your Idea. It's really simple! Look at the Idea. Let's use an example... "a monkey eats a banana that gives him magical powers." It's a pretty simple Idea. Once that is written down, and you have slept, had caffeine and are able to focus entirely on your Idea, you can start building on it. Ask yourself the important questions. "Who is this monkey?" "Why does he need powers?" "Where did the banana come from?" "What does he use his powers for?" etc. By asking these important questions, you should be able to move onto step four.
Build a timeline. Incorporate all your Ideas and answers to your questions. Let's assume the badguy is a plumber and the monkey is in love with a princess. But the plumber is in love with the princess too. The time line looks like this: Monkey sees princess- monkey falls in love -princess is in love with plumber - monkey eats bananas to drown his sorrow - gets powers - kidnaps princess - plumber comes to save his girl - big fight - the plumber wins -the end. You need to flesh out each portion, but once those steps are established, you can see your story taking shape.
Step five is to actually write the story. Fill in the holes, build the world, describe things. That's the fun part. Just do it. I'll wait.
Step six is editing. I usually give myself a few weeks off after finishing a novel before I begin editing. I don't agree with the "set your story aside for up to three months" method of editing. When I have an idea I want it out and perfected as soon as possible. Editing is the HARDEST part for me. I hate it. I hate the whole process. I am a perfectionist so everything SHOULD be perfect on the first go. But when I get into it, I can make those changes to make it perfect. I edit everything at once, make it perfect and THEN leave it. You can do this step however you like, but for me, getting the editing done once the story is told is the best way to get on with it.
From here, the process gets messy because so many people will tell you to do different things. Beta readers, critique groups, agents, whatever. You do what feels right to you. I am partial of having an outside opinion, a friend or my partner or even my sister, read the story in it's entirety and take notes and tell me what was good (or bad) and then I can consider and revise as needed.
I don't think that the creative process should be much harder than it already is. You put your heart and soul into your world. You give the characters life already, why make it more difficult than it needs to be? This is how I work. I suppose you'll have something different in the process, and who the hell am I to tell you how to write YOUR story? So go on, write. Because, I know that if you're anything like me, you'll NEED to.
Kai Kiriyama is an insomniac. This was written during 40 hours of awake time. She may be clinically insane now, but you'll still love her.
As always, you can find her on Twitter at @thekiriyamaheir and her email is thekiriyamaheir@gmail.com or you can find her on Facebook at: facebook.com/AuthorKaiKiriyama.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Criticism, Television, Walkers, and Superviewers
I learned a new word today. "Superviewers". I don't know how I feel about this word.
I was reading an article online from the New York Times that Glen Mazzara (Show runner for The Walking Dead) tweeted earlier in regards to the season finale of The Killing. In it, the writer referred to a certain faction of viewers as "superviewers".
I think the easiest way to sum up the phrase is by describing these so-called superviewers as "fans [of whichever show, movie, media etc.] who use social media as a megaphone and/or mouthpiece to express their extreme emotions towards said media."
And this can be done for positive or negative.
I think it was a very good move for Mr. Mazzara to point this out because, in reality, the majority of the fans of The Walking Dead are extremely intelligent. At least, I like to think so, being one of those fans myself. I assume that there will be a lot more fans of The Walking Dead actually taking the moment to read the article. Whether the same fans take anything away from the article is a different story.
But I did, and that's the point.
I don't really comprehend the concept behind what makes a "superviewer." I use my social networking sites, Facebook, Twitter, etc. to connect with other fans and friends who are also fans. (Most of my real-life friends aren't Walking Dead fans, so I take what I can get. And that is not to downplay the awesomeness that is my internet friends. You guys fuckin' RULE.) I have had some really great, intelligent conversations with people online, especially on Twitter, regarding The Walking Dead. However, I've never expressed disappointment or any negative criticism towards the show. I admitted to crying and feeling very upset over the show, but I would, if I was involved with TWD, take that as more of a compliment than anything else. I don't understand when people get up on a soapbox and complain about the "pace" of the episodes (or season) or "the lack of zombie mayhem." The writers and producers have a very clear vision of what they want this show to be and I feel that they have done an excellent job of showing us, as viewers, that vision.
I don't personally watch The Walking Dead to get a fix of zombie mayhem. I watch the show because it goes deeper into the psychological aspect of what would happen to the survivors of the zombie apocalypse. I like the fact that it is full of angst and drama. In fact, seeing these characters break down emotionally and try to recover while there are other people's lives depending on them is what makes the show seem more realistic and far more entertaining to me than if it was the same "see a zombie, shoot the zombie, hide from the zombie, scavenge some food whilst running from the zombies, regroup and hide some more, end with a BANG" formula that every zombie movie seems to employ.
I think that this is the problem with the fandom of zombie apocalypse things in general: we have grown accustomed to a one-shot movie that is no more than two hours long that takes us quickly through the emotional degeneration and survival-instinct kicking in phase, through the zombie mayhem and killing and typically ends with a punch and/or a bang.
When you draw that out into a season's worth of television programming, we lose track of how long has actually elapsed in the world. In The Walking Dead, it has only been about 2 months since the outbreak - and Rick was in a coma for the first few weeks of it! Of course these people are still going to be reeling about what's happened and the degeneration of civilization as we know it is still happening. They're not entirely sure how to cope with the losses of... well, everything. They are still trying to figure it out. And this is where the drama comes from. You can't expect everything to work perfectly, people die, zombies show up, everything goes to hell. You have to consider - and this is what I really loved about The Walking Dead - that stereotypes, racism, misogyny, gender roles, psychopathy, and all the other negative stuff that society keeps in check (usually) still exists. Without actual laws and law enforcement in place to keep these things in line, it's all going to run rampant. We have seen it happen in the show. (Merle, Ed, Lori, Shane all show off the things I just mentioned in the first 6 episodes...)
I don't get it when fans criticize the work that these people these PROFESSIONALS do. Weren't you entertained? Did you feel anything for the characters? You know you're coming back next week to watch it. And the week after. And the week after.
The season 2 finale had 9 MILLION viewers.
You watched it every week. Don't deny it. You probably watched the encore too. I know I did.
And The Walking Dead got me to bond with my 14 year-old sister who is also a fan. I go to mom's place to watch it with them every week during the regular season.
I don't have cable TV. I cancelled my subscription almost 6 months ago because I was tired of paying insane amounts of money (it was almost $80 a month for a basic cable package) to watch Star Trek reruns and Doctor Who, if I was home in time to catch it. Which I never was. Because I work on Saturdays which is when it airs in my hometown. And I am not a fan of most of the shows on TV these days. I have a very dry and "British" sense of humor. Sitcoms do not appeal to me.
I loved AMC, however. My partner and I would spend days off watching movie marathons and AMC's original programming for hours. AMC got me hooked on Westerns, namely Clint Eastwood's works. Hang 'em High is my favorite.
So please, if you're going to criticize the producers, don't harass them on Twitter. They have made themselves SO accessible to us, the fans, the viewers. So have the actors. Personally, I follow 3 writers, 2 Executive Producers, and 5 of the actors who I can think of off the top of my head on Twitter. I would hate to lose those privileges of being able to get my questions answered, or to see behind the scenes pictures that they share with us because of the soapboxing and the so-called "Superviewers".
I suppose that by writing this I am toeing the line of becoming a "superviewer" myself. But that's okay, because I'm done my soapboxing.
I'm really just looking forward to Season 3.
Kai Kiriyama is a novelist who has several books in the works and is hoping to write scripts for film and television one day, despite being unpublished outside of the internet. She lives in the frozen North with her hedgehog Odin, her snake Rhaegar and her laptop.
You can find her on Twitter at @thekiriyamaheir and you can email her your arguments if you need more than 140 characters at thekiriyamaheir@gmail.com
I was reading an article online from the New York Times that Glen Mazzara (Show runner for The Walking Dead) tweeted earlier in regards to the season finale of The Killing. In it, the writer referred to a certain faction of viewers as "superviewers".
I think the easiest way to sum up the phrase is by describing these so-called superviewers as "fans [of whichever show, movie, media etc.] who use social media as a megaphone and/or mouthpiece to express their extreme emotions towards said media."
And this can be done for positive or negative.
I think it was a very good move for Mr. Mazzara to point this out because, in reality, the majority of the fans of The Walking Dead are extremely intelligent. At least, I like to think so, being one of those fans myself. I assume that there will be a lot more fans of The Walking Dead actually taking the moment to read the article. Whether the same fans take anything away from the article is a different story.
But I did, and that's the point.
I don't really comprehend the concept behind what makes a "superviewer." I use my social networking sites, Facebook, Twitter, etc. to connect with other fans and friends who are also fans. (Most of my real-life friends aren't Walking Dead fans, so I take what I can get. And that is not to downplay the awesomeness that is my internet friends. You guys fuckin' RULE.) I have had some really great, intelligent conversations with people online, especially on Twitter, regarding The Walking Dead. However, I've never expressed disappointment or any negative criticism towards the show. I admitted to crying and feeling very upset over the show, but I would, if I was involved with TWD, take that as more of a compliment than anything else. I don't understand when people get up on a soapbox and complain about the "pace" of the episodes (or season) or "the lack of zombie mayhem." The writers and producers have a very clear vision of what they want this show to be and I feel that they have done an excellent job of showing us, as viewers, that vision.
I don't personally watch The Walking Dead to get a fix of zombie mayhem. I watch the show because it goes deeper into the psychological aspect of what would happen to the survivors of the zombie apocalypse. I like the fact that it is full of angst and drama. In fact, seeing these characters break down emotionally and try to recover while there are other people's lives depending on them is what makes the show seem more realistic and far more entertaining to me than if it was the same "see a zombie, shoot the zombie, hide from the zombie, scavenge some food whilst running from the zombies, regroup and hide some more, end with a BANG" formula that every zombie movie seems to employ.
I think that this is the problem with the fandom of zombie apocalypse things in general: we have grown accustomed to a one-shot movie that is no more than two hours long that takes us quickly through the emotional degeneration and survival-instinct kicking in phase, through the zombie mayhem and killing and typically ends with a punch and/or a bang.
When you draw that out into a season's worth of television programming, we lose track of how long has actually elapsed in the world. In The Walking Dead, it has only been about 2 months since the outbreak - and Rick was in a coma for the first few weeks of it! Of course these people are still going to be reeling about what's happened and the degeneration of civilization as we know it is still happening. They're not entirely sure how to cope with the losses of... well, everything. They are still trying to figure it out. And this is where the drama comes from. You can't expect everything to work perfectly, people die, zombies show up, everything goes to hell. You have to consider - and this is what I really loved about The Walking Dead - that stereotypes, racism, misogyny, gender roles, psychopathy, and all the other negative stuff that society keeps in check (usually) still exists. Without actual laws and law enforcement in place to keep these things in line, it's all going to run rampant. We have seen it happen in the show. (Merle, Ed, Lori, Shane all show off the things I just mentioned in the first 6 episodes...)
I don't get it when fans criticize the work that these people these PROFESSIONALS do. Weren't you entertained? Did you feel anything for the characters? You know you're coming back next week to watch it. And the week after. And the week after.
The season 2 finale had 9 MILLION viewers.
You watched it every week. Don't deny it. You probably watched the encore too. I know I did.
And The Walking Dead got me to bond with my 14 year-old sister who is also a fan. I go to mom's place to watch it with them every week during the regular season.
I don't have cable TV. I cancelled my subscription almost 6 months ago because I was tired of paying insane amounts of money (it was almost $80 a month for a basic cable package) to watch Star Trek reruns and Doctor Who, if I was home in time to catch it. Which I never was. Because I work on Saturdays which is when it airs in my hometown. And I am not a fan of most of the shows on TV these days. I have a very dry and "British" sense of humor. Sitcoms do not appeal to me.
I loved AMC, however. My partner and I would spend days off watching movie marathons and AMC's original programming for hours. AMC got me hooked on Westerns, namely Clint Eastwood's works. Hang 'em High is my favorite.
So please, if you're going to criticize the producers, don't harass them on Twitter. They have made themselves SO accessible to us, the fans, the viewers. So have the actors. Personally, I follow 3 writers, 2 Executive Producers, and 5 of the actors who I can think of off the top of my head on Twitter. I would hate to lose those privileges of being able to get my questions answered, or to see behind the scenes pictures that they share with us because of the soapboxing and the so-called "Superviewers".
I suppose that by writing this I am toeing the line of becoming a "superviewer" myself. But that's okay, because I'm done my soapboxing.
I'm really just looking forward to Season 3.
Kai Kiriyama is a novelist who has several books in the works and is hoping to write scripts for film and television one day, despite being unpublished outside of the internet. She lives in the frozen North with her hedgehog Odin, her snake Rhaegar and her laptop.
You can find her on Twitter at @thekiriyamaheir and you can email her your arguments if you need more than 140 characters at thekiriyamaheir@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)