The Hazards of Writing What You Know

Write what you know.

It's perhaps the first piece of serious writing advice anyone gets, and it is one of the most repeated pieces of advice writers hear. It's good advice too, because after all who better to write about homicide investigation, psychological therapy, or murder than someone who's done it before?

Pictured: An expert in all three.

While there is a certain amount of logic to this line of reasoning though there are hazards that come with taking these four words too closely to heart and not balancing them out with anything else. Some of those pitfalls include...

Being Too Thorough

There's a fine line between doing your research and boring your audience. Crime scene investigation is a good example. Being a CSI tech is an important job, and there's a lot of work involved in the job. But if you get into the minutia of the chemical sprays involved, the layers of precautions taken to protect you from contaminating the crime scene, and the sheer amount of tedium involved in testing and re-testing the same evidence to be sure that your results are correct chances are your audience is going to stop caring in a big damn hurry.

And then you inject the mitochondrial membrane with...

There's a difference between being realistic and covering every, single detail of what your professionals do. Have a doctor, a medical examiner, or a hairdresser as the lead in your story by all means, but don't bog your reader down with unnecessary details that don't advance the story or which aren't necessary for your book to make sense. Just because you find the process of how a public defender gets assigned a case to be fascinating doesn't mean your audience really cares so long as a lawyer shows up to defend the character accused of manslaughter.

You'll Never Branch Out

It's a good idea to write about situations and events you can make believable. That doesn't mean you should write about the same thing over and over again though. For instance you might hit your stride writing novels that always involve horses, and if you manage to carve a niche out doing that then good for you. If you aren't Dick Francis though you're going to start getting pretty predictable pretty quickly, especially when every book is about a jockey tracking down someone poisoning horses, rigging races, or corruption on a race track. I call this Scooby-Doo Syndrome, and it's a great way for your work to get stagnant in record time.

I'm sure there's another example here somewhere...

You should indeed write about things you know; it is never a good idea to make things up when you can track down the facts and get it right, especially if people reading your story will point out that you botched something important that puts a big hole right in the middle of your plot. So write what you know, but make sure you branch out so you know as much as possible.

It Will Be Hard To Keep Yourself Out Of The Story

Nothing is more embarrassing than realizing you've accidentally put yourself in your novel (except perhaps trying to explain to people that no, it's totally necessary for you to be mentioned by name in your own damn novel). Authors can avoid doing this by writing characters who come from different backgrounds, or who have different religions, ethnicities, sexual preferences, gender, etc. One of the easiest ways to put that necessary barrier between yourself and your character(s) is to write something other than what you already know.

Like being eloquent and well-spoken, perhaps?

There's always going to be a little of yourself in your characters, it's something you can't avoid and something you shouldn't really try to. But when your author photo and bio reads more like your character introduction than not it might be time to back up and re-evaluate whether you're too close to the project and what effect that's having on the book. Unless you're Ian Fleming... seriously Ian Fleming was James Bond.

No Advice Is Universal

It's important to remember no writing advice is absolute. The reason for that is because every book, just like every author is unique. What might be good for one particular young adult novel about the son of a sea hag coming into his heritage won't necessarily be good for a particular gritty, hard-boiled thriller about a detective chasing down the terrorist splinter-cell who killed her partner. You should always take advice, even good advice, with a grain of salt. Even if you find it right here at the Literary Mercenary.

Thanks for stopping by, and if you'd like to help support this blog then stop by The Literary Mercenary's Patreon page and consider becoming a patron today! To ensure you don't miss any of my updates then ensure you follow me on Facebook and Tumblr as well!

What Is A Real Writer's Daily Word Count? (Also, Why NaNoWriMo Gives You Bad Habits)

I told myself I wasn't going to weigh in on the continued existence of NaNoWriMo (I said everything I had to say in this entry last year). I said this November I would just blithely do my own thing and ignore all of the hopefuls who are blazing away at their keyboards until blissful unconsciousness finally claims them. Unfortunately though there's a subject that crops up a lot this time of year, and I think it's one writers need to seriously discuss.

That subject is your daily word count. Specifically what it should and shouldn't be.

1,666 words exactly. There, done!

How many words you put on the page each day is an intensely personal subject. To use a simile it's like working out; the number of words you put down is going to reflect your needs and your goals as a writer. Walk into a gym and you'll see a lot of people doing ostensibly the same activity (exercising), but with a slew of different goals (compete in bodybuilding competitions, shape up for a movie role, look good to get back in the dating pool, improve health, etc.).

Walking into a writing group is a lot like this example. You're going to have the writer who's on deadline, so she has to get big chunks of text done immediately if she's going to get paid. You have the writer who's doing it as a side job with no deadline who's going to shop the manuscript around to publishers once it's done. Then you have the writers who are just getting into the craft, and those who are doing it to stay sharp but who are there mostly for themselves. Every writer there is doing the same thing (putting words on a page) but each one of them has different needs.

So What Does This Have To Do With NaNoWriMo?

Thanks for reminding me...

No worries, bro.

The great thing about events like NaNoWriMo is that it makes writing a more inclusive activity. It gives people who might otherwise have never attempted to write a novel the chance to try it out and see how they like it. However there's a couple of issues with the competition; mainly the word count and how writers have to chase it like a fleet-footed stag across the wastes.

The agreed-upon length of a novel is a minimum of 50k words. That's no mean feat, but in order to make that minimum in one month it means that someone has to write 1,666 words per day. No missed days, no edits, no nothing. The issue, as several writers have mentioned, is that this leaves you chasing word count rather than crafting your story. Also we're talking minimum; so if your story spirals out of control and needs 70k or 100k words to be told then that 1,666 words per day just isn't going to make the 1 month cut off. Too bad, so sad.

So what's the problem? Nothing, if you're writing for NaNo (though really any time you're left pursuing a word count instead of asking yourself if you're telling the story you want to tell it might be time to pick a different metric for your work). Most of us aren't, but the idea that your daily word count is a measure of your skill and value as a writer is something that we can't shake in the wider world of writers. This competition didn't create that stigma, but it has blown it up to the point that even rank amateurs think they can dictate how good someone is based on daily numbers.

So What's The Right Word Count?

Stephen King is reputed to do 10k words per day on a novel, whether he's feeling it or not. Kurt Vonnegut was said to have done one page per day, no more and no less, and he would not proceed until that one page was completely perfect. Hemingway, Hunter S. Thompson, Neal F. Litherland all have one thing in common...

Aside from a love of guns and money?

Different approaches to our works. I can't speak for Hemingway and Thompson (as my Ouija board has recently developed a fickle streak), but I can tell you that depending on the project I can get anywhere from 500 to 2,000 words of fiction in a day. With the blogs and article posts I write to keep the lights on and my landlord happy I'm looking at an addition 1,500+ words of work (or more) every 24 hour period.

I'm no Stephen King, but I can put down a respectable chunk of text.

That doesn't make me a better or a worse writer than any of the other famous authors I've used for comparison. What makes you a good writer? Skill, dedication, imagery, good grammar, proper spelling... all of these things, but not how many words you can put down on a page in a 24 hour period.

Don't get me wrong, it's a nice bonus to be able to crank out work en masse because the words just flow out of you like pop fiction diarrhea. Just don't beat yourself with a yardstick that might not actually mean anything if it takes you 6 months instead of 1 to get your first draft done.

Do What Works For You

I cannot stress this strongly enough; every writer has his or her own process. It sounds like pretentious art major bullshit, but it's true to a degree. Some authors can just bang out a rough draft in a few months (or a month), get it edited, and have it on the shelves by Christmas. Some authors may take years to get their next book out. Even authors who are successful and don't really need a day job can leave their fans twisted in knots awaiting the next development.

We're not naming names.

It's a natural feeling to be frustrated by only putting down a few hundred words (or less... we've all had those days). Progress is progress though, and writers need to learn that we all have off days. More importantly though we all gain stamina. Maybe you'll never be a 10k word powerhouse but if you start out doing a few hundred words a day on one project then that can jump to a thousand words on the next project. Much like the aforementioned exercise it gets easier the longer you stick to your schedule.

So write every day, no matter how much or how little you manage to put on the page.

If you'd like to support The Literary Mercenary then check out my Patreon page and become a patron today! Alternatively check out The Literary Mercenary's tee shirts! Lastly if you want to get all of my updates either plug your email into the box on the right hand side of the screen or you can follow me at Facebook and Tumblr.

The Disposable Woman: A Trope That Really Needs to Go

Motivation is one of the central parts of a story; if your main character doesn't have any motivation then chances are good you can't really call him a hero. If you're having trouble lighting a fire under your lead's nether regions though, relax, there's a simple way to get it done.

All you have to do is kill a woman who's important to him.

Instructions are on page 24.

A wife, a daughter, a mother (all three if you're time-traveling in Alabama); it doesn't matter who she is as long as she's important to your main character. Her death will act as the springboard for whatever it is your main character needs to do in your story. Maybe that thing is to put on a cape and cowl to prowl the streets at night, maybe it's asking the woman he loves to marry him, or maybe it's throwing his badge out the window to go on a blood-soaked vengeance spree, but whatever it is all you need to do is drill that special lady in your lead's life.

Or is it?

The Disposable Woman

I swear I'll avenge you... you... shit, I knew your name a minute ago...

This trope, appropriately labeled the Disposable Woman (here's the page for it at TV Tropes), is perhaps one of the greatest examples of lazy writing that no one questions. We see it in video games like Final Fantasy VII (it's Vincent Valentine's entire back story), and in comic books like The Punisher and Batman. It's a favorite in action movies like Mel Gibson's Edge of Darkness, and  it's the entire point of the first Deathwish film. The female character in question is not a vibrant, living part of the story that our audience gets to fall in love with. She isn't someone whose death truly affects us. She's typically just a ghostly, haunting reason for whatever is going on; she exists solely as the catalyst for our hero's (and it's always the hero, never the heroine) actions. If we get to see her at all it will be for a brief few flashes until something awful happens to her.

What's The Problem?

To explain what's wrong with this trope I'll give you an example of how it's done right. In Stephen King's novel Bag of Bones we meet up with author Mike Noonan. Mike's life changes dramatically when his wife Jo dies (but she maintains a ghostly presence throughout the book, making her a Lost Lenore rather than a Disposable Woman. In short, we actually see how and why she's important to Mike). Mike goes up to his summer home where he meets and falls in love with a much younger woman named Mattie Devore. This embroils him in her custody battle for her daughter Kyla against her father-in-law. For more than half the book we learn about Mike, Jo, and his new lady love, before a man with a gun shows up and kills Mattie. In a piece of meta-criticism Mike remembers how when he would get stuck writing a story he'd just have a man with a gun come in and kill the woman, something he's horrified by with his lover's blood all over his hands.

That right there is why this trope is such a problem; the shallowness of how it's typically used.

In Bag of Bones we're invested in both of the women that Mike loses. His wife is more than just a convenient reason for him to get out of town, and his new lover's death is something that rocks Mike and the audience to their bones. They're both given depth, and a continued presence in the story. In short the author worked to be dynamic, rather than just relying on a trope crutch to prop up the narrative.

Why Does It Matter?

On a professional level the Disposable Woman is lazy. Just as, if not more lazy, then throwing in a rape scene just to add drama or to spackle over a plot point to your story (more on that here). It's quick shorthand for a motivation that readers have seen a hundred times, and it absolves the writer of doing the hard work of pulling the reader in. For a recent example look at the character of Drax the Destroyer from the film Guardians of the Galaxy. He's a hulking brute who's murdered hundreds of people trying to get to the man who killed his wife and child... but should we feel for him? Is a man (using the term loosely) capable of such wanton brutality someone who was ever a good father? A good husband? Or was he always like this, and the death of his family simply gave him the excuse? We don't know; we're just supposed to take that tragedy at face value and accept that it made Drax who he is now.

Secondly using the Disposable Woman is sending a message to readers. A message that as writers we should really, truly consider before we put it down on paper.

Don't be that guy.

Stories carry messages. If your story is about a modern day knight with a machine gun off to slay the dragon because it kidnapped a princess, then that sends a message. It tells male readers that violence is an acceptable solution to problems, it tells female readers that they shouldn't struggle when taken captive, and it tells dragons they're horribly evil fucks who deserve to be shot.

The problem with the Disposable Woman is that she sends a message to women just as surely as Rapunzel or Sleeping Beauty does. First off, it tells women that the only role they can have to motivate a story is to die, and that's not the way anyone wants to be represented. Secondly it tends to show women that women only have importance when they're connected to men; mothers, grandmothers, sisters, aunts, daughters, and girlfriends. Even if there are other female characters in the story that stigma is going to be sitting over the hero's motivation.

That is not to say that you can't use the Disposable Woman in your story. The next time that setup occurs to you though, ask yourself if that's the only way. Does your FBI agent's wife have to be murdered before he starts playing hardball with the mafia? Instead, why not have her leave him because he's too dedicated to the case? Why not have him driven half-crazy because he keeps seeing men he knows are guilty go free? Why not give him a particular mad-on against the crime that a particular organization is committing and getting away with?

There's always multiple sources of motivation. If you sidestep the neat and easy way to set up a story you're likely to discover more about your characters, and to create a richer story than you might otherwise have written.


As always thanks for dropping by The Literary Mercenary. Follow me by putting your email in the box on your right hand side, or by going to my Facebook or Tumblr. If you'd like to keep me, and this blog, going then check out my Literary Mercenary gear by clicking the link above, buy a book, make a one time donation by clicking the "Shakespeare Gotta Get Paid, Son" button on the right hand side, or by dropping by my Patreon page and becoming a patron today!

More Things You Should Never Say to An Author

Back when my blog was still getting its sea legs I wrote a post titled Things You Should Never Say To An Author. In my naivete I thought that the seven issues I'd experienced at that point were the major players when it came to awkward conversations authors shared with people outside their professional circles.

I was wrong. So very, very wrong.

And I made Jesus cry.

I was so wrong in fact that this week I've decided to create a follow-up public service announcement for those who want to try and reach out to authors as a whole. Whether you're at a cocktail party, a signing event, or wandering the halls at a convention remember that when opening a conversation there are certain things you should avoid saying so as not to get stabbed in the neck with a half-used Bic.

You Should Write A Book About Me

The only notable thing about your life will be its end if you don't stop talking.

I have personally heard this one a dozen times now, one of which came from a total stranger who was cutting my hair (hence why I didn't say anything at the time). Apparently there is such a strong desire in people to believe that their lives have been so unique, and so special, that there are gads of folks who feel a professional storyteller should dedicate 60,000+ words of text to sharing their stories with the world.

I hate to break it to you, but your life really is not all that interesting.

Every time I've heard this statement it's proceeded by some variation of the phrase, "I've seen some shit." After that they blur together. Abusive relationships, drugs and drinking, unexpected children, a string of horrible jobs, assault and possibly manslaughter, all culminating in a normal, boring, pedestrian life. Unfortunately, that is the story of being an adult. It's an unfortunate truth, but unless someone has gone through a truly unique or amazing experience ("I used to run all the guns on the East Coast for a Colombian cartel," or "I flew to Ghana and waged a guerrilla war against an occupying force of mercenaries to free the local tribes people") we don't care. We might copy an irritating verbal tic you have, or make a reference to someone who shares way too much information just because they wanted to dominate the conversation, but no, we are not going to make you a bestselling star.

That's Really Cool... Here's a Copy of My Book

I'll cherish it always.

We all know that one person who, no matter what you're talking about, tries to make the conversation about themselves. Not only do they refocus attention on themselves, but they do it in a way that Kanye West would have thought was classless and rude. There's a version of those people out there in the form of the writer who ambushes professional authors and shoves their own "work" into that professional's hands.

This happened to me once, and I was confused for the rest of the day. My short story "Relic of the Red Planet" had been selected to appear in the Alliteration Ink anthology Sidekicks (still available right here if you want to take a look), and I'd arranged a signing event at my local library. As any unknown author can tell you book signings, even in small towns, don't really draw huge crowds if no one knows who you are. So I waited in a quiet room to see who would show up, and I got two visitors. The first was a guy who was just curious, and the second was an older woman. She introduced herself, said hello, bought a copy of my book, and then promptly took out another book and shoved it into my hands. Then she scuttled off.

I tried to read the book. It was awful, bordering on the nonsensical. Assembled at Create Space it was very clear the author had no grasp of story, cohesion, character development, or possibly a Euclidian reality. I thought this was a really unique experience, but it apparently happens all the time. As soon as people find out you're an author they immediately want to send you their Lord of the Rings slash fic, or pawn off a copy of a self-published book that's sold two copies to their best friends in Japan but which no one else has ever heard of. You could be self-published, the latest addition to an indie house, or the star at Tor; people will still grab your lapels and talk about their projects as if you somehow owed them your time and give-a-shit.

What's happening here is easy to explain; these individuals want validation from someone they view as "making it," and in some cases they're hoping for that lucky break where we demand that they talk to our agents post-haste. That isn't going to happen. We love to talk books and stories; what we do not like is total strangers coming up to us and insisting that we'll love their stories. If we did that to you it would piss you off royally. All we ask is the same courtesy.

You Should Really Write Young Adult Books

What we picture doing to you when you open this conversation.

I've had this conversation with dozens of people, and while you can switch out the variables the irritation remains the same. Whatever genre it is you're working in people will always suggest you work in a different one. If you write horror they'll suggest you tone it back to write young adult fiction. If you write YA fiction they'll suggest you get in on that smut revolution and write erotica. If you write science fiction they'll tell you to try writing some of that dystopia stuff that's selling so well.

It's not that we're so stubborn we will only ever write one kind of story (in most cases). If you were an industry insider who had numbers to back up which genres were making more money then as authors we might nod and consider your words. What average people who think they have the inside track to fiction don't know is that we have put a lot of time into building a brand. We're catering to a particular fan base, and a total shift in our stories will lead to a cut in our sales. Many times we've spent years working to fit into a given area, and that's what people know us for writing. What well-meaning advice providers are doing is telling us to abandon that effort to try something totally different, based on nothing more than their own opinions. Sometimes it's also based on a short program they caught on the news, but most of the time even that is lacking.

If you wonder why we're not ever-so-grateful for your insight, imagine us coming to where you work and saying, "I know being a manager is rough, but have you considered becoming a secretary? I hear there's a lot of potential in that field."

I've Always Wanted to Write a Book

Sure you have, Buttercup.

This statement gets its own separate category because it's different from the writers who try to give authors their half-finished work. People who make this statement tend to be folks who have never taken a real stab at writing since they were in high school. Some very few of the people who make this statement might have once thought about doing NaNoWriMo, but never did.

Many times people who make this statement are just expressing a day dream; sort of like people who say "I've always wanted to own a Ferrari." It's harmless in and of itself, unless you're saying it to someone who slaved away every waking moment for years and did everything short of committing murder to get said Ferrari in his or her garage. While the owner might nod and smile, the urge to reach out and slap the shit out of the dreamer is going to be a strong one.

Alternatively, people might express this desire as a way to try and show that they admire the author. These people understand at some level that writing a book, editing it, publishing it, and then marketing it is a difficult task. However, it's a much better idea to just say that. Don't confide your secret creativity fetish to us; we do this for a living.

Have You Tried Twitter?

They burn Kingston charcoal in the part of hell reserved for you.

Every author has heard this both from well-meaning friends and know-nothing strangers. All you have to do is speak the magic phrase, "I wish I could sell more books," and the mystical advice-genie comes shooting out of the bottle to grant you the secrets of instant wealth.

Wait... sorry, that's a typo. Either that or I'm rubbing the wrong genies. Or however that works.

Anyway, the point is that everyone seems to think they have the one method you haven't tried when it comes to getting big bucks on book sales. Maybe it's phoning the local newspaper, or posting on Facebook pages, or just starting a Twitter account. Whatever it is the idea is obviously so brilliant they're amazed you haven't thought of it.

Here's a hint folks; we have. Any author worth a roller ball signing pen will have carefully researched different marketing methods. We know which conventions have a good reputation (in our areas at least), and we know which forums allow self promotion. We have checked to see how much banner ads cost, and we've probably laid the ground work for starting an author blog (if we didn't already have one). No matter what idea it is you've had chances are good any author who's been in the game more than a year has already heard it, tried it, and possibly discarded it.

It's not that we aren't open to help; authors love to be given helpful suggestions and opportunities by people. Telling someone you have a friend in the entertainment section of the Times, or offering to hook us up with a cousin of yours who writes a popular book review blog is great. We would gladly accept that kind of help all the live-long day. When someone says "just get on social media site X" like that will turn us into an overnight sensation though it is not in the least helpful.

Before you speak ask the author what they've done to push the book so far. That way you're not going to make a suggestion the author has already grabbed hold of and is milking for all it's worth.

As always thanks for stopping in for this week's edition of The Literary Mercenary. If you'd like to get all of my updates then toss your name into the box on your top right, or follow me on Facebook and Tumblr. If you'd like to support me and my blog then leave a tip by clicking the "Shakespeare Gotta Get Paid" donation button on the upper right, or stop by my Patreon page to become a patron today!

There Are Only Two Kinds of Writers (Chances Are You're One Of Them)

For those who missed last week's update (How to Make Money On Your Blog By Selling Swag), the Literary Mercenary now has its own online store! Just check out this link to see my first design, and if you're the sort of person who wants to be vocal about your opinions on whether or not corporations are people just tell your friends to stop by and take a look. It's my avowed goal to get one new design up per month, but depending on how crazy my other professional demands get that might slip to one every two months or so.

You know you want one.

Anyway, what was I talking about? Oh yes, how there's really only two kinds of writers in the world.

Well, What Are They?

That's italics for you; no-bullshit and to-the-point. The most common names I've heard for the two types of writers in the world are plotters and pantsers; meaning authors who carefully plot out their stories and those who fly by the seat of their pants. Because I dislike these terms (to me they feel like someone who's teaching a class of third graders how to be writers), I will instead use the ones provided by an author whose career I'd emulate more if I could figure out how; architects and gardeners. People who draw a careful blueprint of the whole structure, and people who bury an idea in fertile soil and see what kind of insanity takes root.

The source of these terms, for the curious.

But Neither One of Those Fits My Style

Yes they do. There are only two kinds of writers, just as there are only seven kinds of conflicts, and twenty kinds of dramatic situations. Whether we like it or not the truth of the writing profession is that mechanically there are only so many colors on our palettes, and there are only so many kinds of brush strokes we can use.

The real miracle is that, with such limited tools, we can still create such a plethora of fiction!

Seriously though, you can still check this out if you want to.

As for myself I'm an architect who likes a little free-flow in my stories. I have a beginning, an end, and a few plot points figured out through the story. How I connect those points I don't know until I get to that particular page. It provides a certain structure, but at the same time allows my story and characters enough free flow that I don't feel like I'm trying to micromanage my own creativity. That's what works for me, but I've spoken to authors who are much more extreme than I am on both sides of the line. I've also spoken to one or two who have very similar methods.

It all depends on how your mind works. Whether you choose to draw an entire blueprint of your short story, novel, or series, or you choose to just bury the idea in a hole and water it with coffee and blood to see what grows is your decision as a writer. If you want to just put up a loose frame for the story to grow around, that's perfectly acceptable too. Maybe you like to write completely blitzed on tequila, or you find you do your best work at 3 a.m. when the world is asleep and the quiet settles in. Maybe you like writing horror, or sci fi, or fantasy, or serious books about serious people who do serious shit.

The point here is that every artist is completely unique, but we're all using the same tools and techniques to create very different masterpieces. What you as an author need to do is find the method that works best for you and to use it to turn out your own masterpiece.

Seriously, don't let other people tell you how to write. But if there's only two methods at either end of a sliding scale, chances are good you fit somewhere on there.

Again, thanks for dropping by The Literary Mercenary. If you've got any thoughts on what you'd like to see then please send a message. If you'd like to keep up on all my updates then toss your email in the box on the top right, or follow me on Facebook and Tumblr. If you want to help keep me going then buy a book, buy a tee shirt, toss a tip into my jar by clicking the "Shakespeare Gotta Get Paid, Son" button on the upper right, or drop by my Patreon page to become a patron today!

The Five Types of Beta Readers Every Writer Should Have

Writing a story is a lot like giving birth; it's uncomfortable, sweaty, causes a strain, keeps you up nights, makes you want heavy drugs to kill the pain, and in the end you're so exhausted and proud of yourself you don't know what to do. Your first urge is to show everyone the thing you've accomplished, blind to the fact that your story is covered in shit and squalling at the top of its voice.

That's what beta readers are for. They pat you on the back, tell you what a good job you did, and start pointing out all the places you really need to clean up before you offer your latest accomplishment for a "best baby of the year" competition. In short it's their job to make sure that you don't get so stuck on how perfect your child is that you overlook its hanging indents, weeping plot holes, and bastardized concept.

Here is a picture of your ideal beta reading team, though you can add more if you need to. Your team consists of:

The English Teacher

"There were ducks," not "Their were ducks." How many times do I have to tell you?

The front line enforcer of homophones and proper contractions, the English Teacher is an author's best friend. Blunt and occasionally harsh, the Teacher tends to ignore plot and language in favor of checking to be sure your grammar and spelling are correct and acceptable. If the Teacher doesn't remark on the story, character development, or other stylistic choices then you can usually assume they're fine. I recommend starting with the Teacher because it's important to let the air out of your ego early in order to make your story the best it can possibly be.

The Librarian

Dude, you can't call it a Hitler-stache. Why? Your story's set in 1879, for starters...

Nothing is more embarrassing than writing an entire novel, just to find out your facts are wrong. Contrary to popular belief being an author doesn't make you an expert on martial arts, firearms, explosives, murder, tax accounting or any other dangerous activities your characters may participate in (though you can learn how to get rid of a body right here!). Every now and again you're going to screw up, and when you do the Librarian is there to catch you. Whether it's informing you of the proper breed of horse used for Civil War cavalry, correcting the caliber of the weapon your soldier is using in the European theater in World War II, or pointing out that the poison your killer used is a highly controlled and very easy to track substance, the Librarian gives you the facts and just the facts. Even if no one other than you and the Librarian would ever know you screwed up, are you willing to take the chance that you'll be known as the author who doesn't do enough research?

The Genre Lover

A dismembered body under the bridge? Oh, Horror, you shouldn't have!

Every story has a genre, and every genre has dedicated lovers. Chances are pretty good you have that one friend who loves your genre just a little more than the others. You know, the one with photoshopped pictures of themselves making out with the genre in the bookstore? The one with whole shelves dedicated to it, who can name off every trope the way Rainman could name the cards left in a deck? Yeah, that one. That's the Genre Lover, and if you can satisfy the big G.L.'s very high standards as someone who's seen it all and done in all in that genre of choice then you have a solid piece of work on your hands, my friend.

The Non-Genre Reader

Ugh, the leads are kissing? If I wanted to read a smut book that's what I would have bought.

Good books have fans from a genre that love it; great books can reach across the aisle and include everyone in their narratives. Frankenstein is science fiction and horror, but it also speaks to those who love human drama and elements of high adventure. The appeal of the creature's struggle, and Victor's attempts to reconcile his life with his one terrible achievement are usually enough to appeal to any reader.

Usually.

There are still people who will turn up their noses at a book that has even the barest whiff of a certain genre about it. If there's a mention of magic, a suggestion of romantic undertones, or if a murder scene is presented in a way that's a little too heavy on squick, these are the readers who will shut the cover and walk away. Not to be confused with the Literary Reader (a pretentious and dismissive breed in its own right), the Non-Genre Reader is your toughest competition. If you can make a Non-Genre Reader care about your story, then you've got something powerful.

The Dreamer

Yeah, but wouldn't it be cool if...

Authors wade out into the pool of imagination, dip themselves down and let the quicksilver spray of inspiration wash over their skin and bleed their stories out of them. It's a kind of immersion that isn't for everyone, and every author has a little area of the pool they prefer to soak in. Dreamers, by and large, are kindred spirits. Some of them are authors in their own right, but some of them just come down to the water's edge and dip their feet in. The Dreamer is the polar opposite of the English Teacher, often ignoring the finer points of language to focus completely on the story. Many times they'll provide plot hole patches that are completely seamless, or build upon your initial ideas to take the story in places even you never thought it would go. Invaluable for their insights on concepts and ideas, as well as archetypes and possibilities, Dreamers shouldn't be ignored just because they're a bit ephemeral at times.

Different Stories, Different Betas

It should be noted that some beta readers can fulfill multiple roles at once. Some Genre Lovers also possess the encyclopedic knowledge of Librarians, and some English Teachers may be Non-Genre Readers as well. Sometimes you'll need multiple betas in the same role, particularly if you need to call on the expertise of half a dozen different kinds of Librarian to get your facts straight. Generally speaking the more eyes that crawl over your story before you submit it, the cleaner and smoother it will be when you hand it to a publisher. Or try to sell it to the masses, whatever your preference happens to be.


As always, thanks again for stopping in at The Literary Mercenary. If you want to keep up to date on all my latest doings then type your email into the box on the top right corner, or follow me on Facebook or Tumblr. If you want to help keep us going then drop your loose change into the tip jar by clicking the "Shakespeare Gotta Get Paid, Son" button on the top right, or check out my Patreon page and become a patron today!

Multiple Points of View in Your Novel: Just Because You Can, Doesn't Mean You Should

A point of view is the lens through which we view a story. Some stories have a window directly implanted in a single character's head, while others prefer a panorama of views with a different window behind the eyes of every member of the cast. No one approach is superior to any other, as any bestseller rack can prove, but it's important for the serious student of storytelling to step back and ask if a kaleidoscope is really necessary when a porthole will do the job just fine.

The Different Perspectives

An example of the extremely rare worm's-eye-view perspective.

There are only three perspectives from which a story can be told; single perspective, multiple perspective, and omniscient perspective. No matter who we're seeing the story through, these are the only three ways it can be done. A single character perspective has us follow a one character (typically referred to as the main character) for the entirety of the story. Everything is told from that perspective. A multiple character perspective will head hop, taking the reader into the perspectives of several different characters and getting the story with multiple leads. An omniscient perspective gives us the view from god's recliner, letting us dip into the minds and feelings of characters as we wish.

It should be noted here that perspective is not the person a story is written in; it is not first, second, or third person. It's possible to write a first person story from a multiple character perspective (though with everyone calling him or herself "I" that's going to get really confusing really damn fast), just as it's possible to write in the third person from an omniscient point of view. Got that? Good, glad I could clear that up for you.

Don't Bring a Swiss Army Knife if You Need a Screwdriver

Never mind. Just never mind.

All right, mixed metaphors aside, I have a serious problem with hop-heads. These writers think that just because they have a big cast that means the audience has to know what every member is feeling and thinking. We don't need to know, and I guarantee you that nine times out of ten we don't care what's going on in the supporting cast's heads enough to jack in and find out.

Perspective exists for two reasons; first, it helps the reader form an emotional connection to a character. The more characters included in the mix, the harder this is to do. You should limit the number of characters whose perspectives we get, though some sources like Darcy Pattison recommend never going over 5 characters. The more characters the audience has thrown at them, the harder it can be to really tug their heart strings when those moments become necessary. The second reason perspective exists is to provide a vantage point to watch the coming drama.

Perspective is the seat you happen to be sitting in while screening the big game. Would moving a few seats over actually change the story? No, because you're surrounded by the same screaming fans, and you have roughly the same view of what's happening from way up high. But would you see a different game if you were sitting over on the opposing team's side of the field? Or if you were down at ground level, close enough to get decent cell phone shots of the plays as they're happening? How about if you were playing the game in question, and you were right there in the action? Yes, changes that extreme can tell a completely different story.

What Are You Talking About?

All right, plain English time. The only time you should shift a perspective is when it serves the story. In Joe Abercrombie's First Law trilogy there are at least three separate perspectives. The reason for that is the characters are all playing out their parts on different sides of the continent, and are not aware of each other. Despite that, the actions of one group still affect the actions of another which creates a bigger sense of the drama as a whole while increasing the scope of the novels. Additionally every time the perspective shifts it's done with the full intention of leaving a cliffhanger, which keeps the reader turning pages to find out what's happening. That is a perspective shift that is purposeful, which serves the plot, and which helps keep the story moving.

Make sense?

I think I saw the horse twitching... beat it harder!

All right, I'll give you another example. Let's take the Harry Potter series. Now ask yourself if you would have liked it as much if we'd bounced between Harry's perspective and, say, Professor Snape. First and foremost, the big twist at the end would have lost all of its punch. Secondly, why would we do that? The series is about Harry's journey into becoming a wizard, and the eventual self-fulfilling prophecy he was born into. Putting another character's perspective into that would have been pointless.

Which is kind of the point.

Here's My Perspective

The perspective a story is written from must always be used to support what the story is about. It is not a shiny red ball to be thrown in as a way to hook the audience, and it isn't a spice to be poured in until it overpowers the taste of your book. Lastly, and most important, perspective is not a cheap, lazy way for you to plug us into your characters' heads so you can just mainline what they're thinking and how they're feeling to us. That's telling, not showing, and I already wrote a guide about fixing that here.

If you feel you need to use a third-person omniscient perspective to tell your story in the proper way, that's fine. It's also fine if you decide to do a single character in the first person. Any time you decide that we absolutely must ride around in more than one head, ask yourself why. If it's necessary to show the audience what's happening, then by all means do so. If it's because you just want to play in your sandbox, or because you don't want to go into the work of writing snappy dialogue and developing characters through their actions, then stop. Your characters, just like real people, will be judged based on what they do. We don't want to be told what they're thinking or feeling; show those things to us without literary parlor tricks.

As always, thanks for stopping by the Literary Mercenary. We've added a new button on the right hand side where you can subscribe to us via e-mail so you never miss an update. It's free to you, good for us, and has exactly no impact on the environment. Lastly, if you really want to keep up to date with the latest literary doings, follow me on Facebook or Tumblr.

The Mary Sue: What It Is, And How To Avoid It

A quick announcement before we begin; the new anthology Shadows of a Fading World from Long Count Press went live today. This collection contains tales of dying worlds, and among them is my story "Paths of Iron and Blood". If you're interested, check it out here on Amazon.

Now then, where was I? Oh yes...

The Mary Sue

Mary Sues; even if you don't know the name, you know these characters. They're the youngest, the smartest, the prettiest, and they just have the cutest eyes and the most tragic back stories. Everyone loves them, and those who don't hate them only out of jealousy and spite.

These characters are, no exaggeration intended, the things editors see in their nightmares.

And this. Editors have nightmares about this.

Some authors strain with every fiber of their being to avoid creating these types of characters. Some of us are in denial about the problems with our own, imaginary children and won't see them until beta readers set our manuscripts on fire on our front lawns in protest. To avoid this, there are some easy ways to make sure all your characters, not just your leads, avoid becoming one of these shallow gateways to wish fulfillment.

Step One: Take the Test

There are dozens of tests out on the Internet which can give you feedback on how much of a Mary Sue your character is or isn't. One of the most reliable tests I've come across is the Universal Mary Sue Litmus Test, which can be found here. Running your character through this test should always be your first step, even if you're positive he or she is clean.

Step Two: Scrub Off Some of The Special

Your characters are not beautiful, unique snowflakes; they're people. Every person, and every character, has a list of abilities, skills, and a history that's led them to become who they are in this moment. Even the waiter whose name we never learn on page 75. However, if your character is a little too remarkable for the world you've created, a lot of readers are going to get turned off right quick.

Guess which section is responsible for this?

Here's a little history lesson for you. The Mary Sue, according to the eminently reliable source of a Wikipedia article, is the direct result of Star Trek fan fiction. The actual character by the name of Mary Sue was created and published in the fanzine Menagerie #2 in a 1973 story titled "A Trekkie's Tale". This story set out to deliberately show how ridiculous a fifteen-and-a-half-year-old lieutenant, the youngest and brightest ever to graduate from the academy and to be given a field commission, was. This story was in response to a huge number of tales with similar self-insert characters who, despite their youth, were precocious enough to save the day in addition to getting in bed with canonical, adult-aged characters.

Firstly, I'm sure there's a regulation somewhere against that kind of thing in any navy. Second, no.

So, if your character scored too high on the Mary Sue Litmus Test (again, you can and should take it here), then you need to look at what makes him or her too special. Is the character too young to be established in a certain field? Does the character have impossible-colored hair, eyes, or other features which mark him or her out as obviously special and different? Has the character mastered some skill or discipline uncommon to the world, such as being a disciple of an ancient martial art known to a chosen few or being one of the most naturally talented spellcasters in existence?

Whatever it is, ask yourself if it's necessary to the character. For instance, does your lead have to be an ex-special forces soldier, or would simply being someone who served in the military do? Must this character have pink, blue, or fuchsia hair, or is it a minor, cosmetic thing that can be done away with without altering the story?

Step Three: Make Your Character Work For It

When you watch a lead guitarist shred on stage, an expert marksman put two rounds right next to each other at a half a mile in a high wind, or hear about someone who climbs buildings like a human fly, you see something amazing. What you don't see is the countless hours of practice, training, study, blood, sweat, and shouted swear words that went into that final product. You need to make the reader aware of how your character became what he or she is.

All right wuss, if you make good time I'll take the razor blades out of the grips.

That said, do not, I repeat, do not just list a character's bona fides up front; instead, show them gradually to the reader. I did a post about this here too, but examples always work best. So, say you have a character who is the most talented sorceress the realm has ever seen. Magic comes naturally to her, and she's able to weave spells that should be years beyond her with nary a thought.

That's boring. Even if a character is born with talent, that talent has to be beaten, hammered, and refined into real world skill. Anything worth having takes work.

Take the same character and the same power set, but this time show how hard she worked to be where she is. Have her use jargon unique to magic, and show how intimately she understands the process of manipulating the power. If she does it naturally, treat her more like an athlete than an academic. Point is, she's had to refine what she does to be that good. More importantly though, you need to show us how attaining that level of mastery has marked her worldview and her skill set. Perhaps she can weave fire with a single breath, but does she know how to dance? Maybe she can call lightning from a cloudless sky, but does she understand how to relate to other people? Especially people who don't see the world in terms of elements and power, but rather in terms of growing seasons and harvests?

By dedicating a character so fully to achieving mastery of one area, she has had to sacrifice learning in other areas. She may find it hard to understand the viewpoints of those who are not as learned as she is, or who can't perform even simple magic. You see this in everyday professions as well; what people do shapes their perceptions of the world. Police officers, even when they're off duty, pay attention to faces and movements just in case something goes wrong in their presence. Medical professionals may find it impossible not to see people as collections of tissues and bones, or symptoms and issues, even when they're at home or at a party. By showing us where a character lacks, we find it easier to accept where he or she succeeds.

Step Four: Take the Test Again

I already gave you the link twice. You're not getting it again.

At The End of The Day...

It's important to remember that not every character who looks like a Mary Sue really is one. Run characters like Batman, Morpheus, Doctor Who, and a dozen others through the test, and they'll be rated as irredeemable Mary Sue characters. People love them despite that rating, and they're all million-dollar institutions.

Why, you might ask? Is it because deep down people really love over-powered escapist fantasy? No. The reason any characters with ridiculous powers and trope-laden backgrounds are popular is because they're compelling. They have depth, emotion, and they suck the readers in. It's also very clear that these characters are their own people; they aren't just super-powered stand-ins for the author, the reader, or anyone else.


As always, thanks for dropping by the Literary Mercenary. Your patronage is appreciated, and if you want to help a little more feel free to drop by my Patreon page, or by clicking the "Shakespeare Gotta Get Paid, Son" button in the upper right hand corner. As always, feel free to follow my latest doings on Facebook or Tumblr.

How to Avoid the Dreaded Exposition Dump

Every story needs exposition; there's no way around it. Whether you're writing a gritty, modern thriller in the heart of New York City, or your tale takes place in a fanciful kingdom several worlds away, you need to explain to your audience just what the hell is going on. Without at least a minimally set scene it doesn't matter how great or lovingly you rendered the world; your story won't make sense.

Which way did it go George, which way did it go?

The necessity of exposition has, unfortunately, led to what most people refer to as the exposition dump. This is when writers decide to break all of their action around page five or so (earlier in short stories) in order to shoe horn in a bunch of facts that the reader probably needs to know in order to translate the world, but which have the effect of an anvil dropped from a great height. Some readers might slog through the dump in order to get to the rest of the story, but a lot of them won't.

Fortunately, if you're willing to roll up your sleeves and fire up the backhoe, we can turn this dump into a cleverly camouflaged piece of scenery that's just as effective.

Tip #1: If They Don't Need to Know, Don't Tell Them

Because examples work best, I'll use one to illustrate this point. About a year ago I was invited to participate in an anthology called "Sidekicks" (great book, check it out here), and I wrote a short story titled "Relic of the Red Planet". The simple plot is that in a futuristic, space opera sort of world a collector of rare, alien artifacts has been murdered. His granddaughter enlists the help of an old friend, adventurer and antiquarian Galatea Jones. For backup Galatea calls in a favor from her friend, Martian gun-for-hire Doomsday Blues. Using a public auction as bait to lure out the murderers, whom Galatea suspects were trying to steal a secret part of the dead man's collection, mayhem ensues. When the dust settles, our heroes are victorious.

Now, the story itself is a simple little mystery told in about 5,000 words or so. I could very easily have confused the story, and completely hammered my readers, by including a bunch of extraneous details that, while they would have made the world clearer, simply didn't matter to this particular telling. For instance, did the reader need to know that all of the "aliens" were genetically modified humans designed for life on the more hostile planets of the solar system many thousands of years ago? No, not really. Did I need to make a big deal about what year in the future it was, or how planets like Venus had been altered to support life? Nope. Did I have to explain how interplanetary travel was so advanced? Not in the slightest. All I needed to do was focus on the essentials, which is what I did.

It was just like this. Except with ray guns and aliens.

When writing a story, any story, look at what is essential to understanding the world. You, as the creator, need to know all of it. But if you're loading down a story with a bunch of extraneous material that really doesn't matter, consider cutting it out in favor of keeping the story going.

Tip #2: Show, Don't Tell

I've said it before (right here in this post, in fact), writers should show readers a scene whenever possible. Not only does it keep the story flowing, but it will camouflage the fact that readers have been given critical information. It's kind of like dicing up vegetables and putting them in something tasty so that kids will eat them without even knowing they were there.

Here's a quick example for you. Say you're writing a high fantasy series, and in this series there's an order of knights known as the Foresworn. Now, the important back story might be that these knights are all noble warriors who have fallen from the kingdom's grace, and they are considered persona non grata by the populace at large. They're given suicide missions, and those who survive may once more attain their former rank and earn forgiveness for whatever sins they've committed. Take it a step further, and say that the order is made up of men and women, with ranks and symbols that include death's heads, weighted scales, and black wings.

Being this guy is enough to warrant a life sentence.

Now, assume for a moment that the reader needs to understand some of that in order to grasp why these characters are important. You could go and give an account of how the Foresworn were formed, and list out what each mark of rank means. But why do that when you can just show us a member, and let us draw our own conclusions? Maybe the representative you give us is a big man with a stubbled jaw and greasy hair. Despite his brusque manner and brutish appearance though, his weapons are immaculate and he fights in a way only someone born and trained to war can do. That single action sequence would show us what members are capable of, without the writer having to talk the knights up.

If a single glance isn't enough, then drop a few more hints. Have someone ask him what act he committed to be stripped of rank and title, perhaps. This would let the reader know that despite the armor, and even his birth, the warrior is not considered nobility any longer. Maybe have a member of this organization mention in conversation with her fellows that she's only got two more missions until redemption. These three things give the reader a solid grasp of who the Foresworn are, especially when combined with their name. No matter how cool the history of the order is, or how epic the first knights who began it were, if the readers don't need to know it, see Tip #1.

Tip #3: It's a Bird, It's a Plane... It's Exposition Man!

If you must tell the reader something, then it's best for the statements to come out of your characters' mouths. Cue Exposition Man! By day a humble pathologist, psychologist, neighborhood baker, or dope peddler, but as soon as he comes into contact with protagonists he simply cannot resist the urge to spew forth plot-related details just as quickly as they can ask questions!

You know, it's funny you should ask...

Exposition Man is something of a trope, but he/she/it can often be a very useful plot device. What he does is deliver key information to the reader in such a way that it looks like two characters having a conversation. When done properly Exposition Man has every right to know the things he/she knows about the world and plot, so when the talking trope decides to open up about the goings on of the local crime boss, or expound on the different oaths the Monks of the Eternal Silence supposedly take, the reader doesn't balk and demand to know why they're being made to read pages of text.

Tip #4: Spread it Out

Exposition is hard work. You have to know what you want the reader to know, and you have to dress it up in a way that's pleasing to the eye and easy for the mind to take in. Doing all of that at once is not easy, and in fact it can give you a mental hernia.

Pictured: A wild metaphor in its natural environment.

Don't try to tell your reader absolutely everything up front. For one thing, it creates an information overload that can read like an essay rather than a novel. Secondly, if you actually expect readers to remember content that took place on page 5-7, then said content needs to be short and snappy in order to claim brain space. If you put a guide to your world there, no matter how necessary it might be, readers aren't going to remember it. They sure as hell aren't going to flip back and look things up, either.

In the end, too much spice will spoil your story. Spread your exposition out, and ask yourself how much of it is necessary at this very moment. If you can cut down on exposition in a scene without losing anything, do so. If something is necessary, find a way to include it. If it's something you just think is cool but would need an entire flashback, side conversation, or out-of-nowhere discussion to even bring up, chances are you don't need it.


As always, thanks for dropping by the Literary Mercenary. Feel free to show your love by clicking our donation button in the upper right hand corner, or by stopping by our Patreon page to become one of our regular backers. Also, during the month of January all new backers will receive links to 2 free stories, as well as a free ebook! Lastly, for those who'd like to keep up on what's going on with me, feel free to drop by my Facebook and Tumblr pages to jack in.

Show Don't Tell: The Case For Story-Showers Vs. Storytellers

I've seen some terrible shit as an editor. Stories with plot holes big enough to accommodate a longshoreman's forearms, characters so shallow they had "no diving" tattooed on their foreheads, and honest-to-gods villain monologues have all made their way across my desk. If I had to pick the one thing that keeps coming back like a monster movie slasher though, it's writers who didn't get the "show, don't tell" memo. Rather than just complain about a problem though, I want to try and help writers of all levels stop being storytellers, and start being story-showers.

So, let's begin at the beginning, shall we?

Yes my map is a circle. Yes it still has a beginning.

What Does "Show, Don't Tell" Even Mean?

I have no idea who first coined this phrase, and the Internet has let me down on discovering the origin. However, famous writers as venerable as Ernest Hemmingway and as recent as Chuck Palahniuk have endorsed the advice. One of Hemmingway's most famous quotes regarding the advice of "show, don't tell" uses an ice berg as a metaphor. It goes like this:

If a writer of prose knows enough of what he is writing about he may omit things that he knows and the reader, if the writer is writing truly enough, will have a feeling of those things as strongly as though the writer had stated them. The dignity of movement of an ice-berg is due to only one-eighth of it being above water.

This confuses a lot of people, but what big-daddy H is laying down is pretty simple to pick up. He's saying that if a writer needs to tell the reader every little thing, then that often represents a failure of communication. Story-showing uses words to craft a scene which the reader can take in, and draw the proper conclusions from.

What Does That Look Like?

Well, a picture is worth a thousand words. I'm not going to write that many, but an example will probably help. So, here, take a look at this image.

A look. Singular.

If someone were to describe this in the storytelling method, it might look like this:

The dancer was sexy.

You can replace "sexy" with whatever subjective word you want, point is that you are telling the reader how to feel about her appearance. You are, in essence, deciding how the reader is supposed to react and dictating accordingly.

Now, a description written in the story-showing style might look more like this;

She was music made flesh. Every sensuous curve gyrated, striking the bells on her hips and ankles in time with the plucking strings. Her smile was slow and wicked, like the sickle-grin of a Cheshire Cat. She swayed, and all eyes followed her hypnotic grace.

All right, maybe the second passage is laying it on a little thick, but look at the differences in context and in what the reader sees. In the first example words like "sexy" and "dancer" aren't very helpful to conveying the image to the reader. One reader might find women with large breasts and broad hips sexy, while another prefers slender, more athletic women. Some readers won't find women sexually attractive at all. Some people will think of ballet dancers, others of strippers, and still others will think of flash mobs or club dancers. By showing the audience the scene, by spending the time to draw out the details without just telling the audience what to feel, a story is greatly improved.

The Difference Between the Two

Some writers might be tearing out their hair, and angrily demanding of the screen if they're just supposed to never make statements about what's happening in their stories. If, to be considered good story-showers, they have to work purely in innuendo and couched terms in order to try to get from A to B.

No. No you do not. That isn't what I'm saying at all.

Then what DO we do?!

What you do need to do is to ask whether you are showing the audience what's happening, or if you're simply making the decision for the reader. For instance, you could say "John's car was a beat-up old rust bucket with peeling paint, but it was all he could afford and it still ran," or you could say "John drove an old '69 Gremlin, with mismatched doors and more primer than paint." By naming the car, you didn't tell your audience how to feel about a situation. You simply provided a detail to help set the scene. That is a "good" use of telling.

A "bad" use of telling would be to say something like "Jim was a real asshole." How do we know that? Subjective descriptions, whether positive or negative, should not be used in description. Dialogue is fine, because dialogue is where characters express their opinions. However, if you want readers to figure out Jim's disposition then you need to show him in a negative light. Have him telling racist jokes, blowing cigar smoke in people's faces, making threats, shoulder-checking people in the hallway; whatever it is that Jim does to make him dislikable, show that. The audience will get the picture you want them to get quickly enough, and you won't have to actually tell them.

One Last Thing...

Every story is going to have a certain amount of telling in it. Sometimes there's really no efficient way to get important data to the reader except to just tell them about it. That said though, it is best to let the readers draw their own conclusions whenever possible.

Nowhere is this more true than with characters' thoughts and feelings.

Except in some, extreme circumstances.

Sometimes writers can get away with this. First person stories, particularly gritty, noir style stories, are renowned for feeding us exactly what a character is thinking and feeling. We let it pass because we are supposed to be riding around in that person's head. If we are not jacked into that person's inner Twitter though, then you should not be giving us the play-by-play of feelings and thoughts.

This mistake happens a lot. It's most common when writers want to convey important feelings to an audience. Love between two leads, hatred between rivals, etc. It's tempting to use words like "angrily" to modify speech, or to just say "hate was written all over her face." Your writing doesn't have a broken leg, and it doesn't need a crutch. Roll up your sleeves and shape the important stuff with the same dedication you do all your other writing. Give us facial expressions, body language, word choice, and all of the other nuance that you have at your disposal to make us hang on your description. Draw readers in, and they'll never want to leave. Tell them how to feel, and they'll slam your cover hard enough to billow your dust jacket.


I hope all my readers, those who write and those who don't, found this week's update useful. If you'd like to keep the Literary Mercenary going, then drop some change in our donation cup in the upper right hand corner. Or, if you're a patron of the arts, check out my Patreon account here and pledge today! As always if you want to stay plugged into my latest, follow me on Facebook and Tumblr to get my updates before anyone else does. Remember, around here, we deal in red.