The Thing No One's Supposed to Blog About

Welcome to Day 2 of Lurker Week here on Author's Echo. I really enjoyed reading your answers to Monday's random questions. I loved learning more about the regulars, and I'm so happy to see the poking heads of folks I've never met, or haven't heard from in a while. Hi, guys! Glad to meet you and/or see you again!

Today's topic is a little tougher than having tea with Gandalf though, but I think it's important. See, I'm aware that a lot of the blogs I read are written by quiet Christians, quiet Mormons, and more. Their faith is a large part of who they are, but they don't talk about it online, just like I don't. There are many, many good reasons for this, but just once I'd like to tell you what I believe, and hear what you believe, about this crazy existence we're all stuck together in. (For the purpose of this post, atheism totally counts by the way).

Some ground rules:

• This is NOT about converting people. The point is to learn about each other, not to prove a point.
• Likewise, this is NOT about who is right or wrong. Please don't put people on the defensive about their faith (and if I do so without realizing, please tell me).
• DON'T be a meanie head. Nasty comments will be summarily destroyed.

Here are some questions to help voice your thoughts. Feel free to use them or skip them as you want.

1. What is your religion (just the label here)?
2. What's one important way your personal belief differs from what people normally think of when they think of that label?
3. How does your personal belief impact your daily life?
4. Most religions agree that the world sucks: people are hurt, get sick, die. How does your personal belief address that?
5. Why do you believe what you believe?
6. Anything else you'd like to share about your beliefs?

And my answers:

1. Christian (non-denominational Protestant, I guess).
2. I'm not your stereotypical conservative (not conservative at all, actually). I don't froth over the mouth about issues like gay marriage, for example. I tend to believe that loving people is more important than making them follow "the rules."
3. Little ways: I go to church. I teach my kids to love Jesus. I read the Bible and pray most days. Big ways: I believe God called my wife and I here to Thailand to do what we do.
4. Short, short answer is that I think it's a combination of sin and free will. That is, God gave us life and the ability to do what we want with it, and a lot of us (all of us, really) have screwed it up. I have a slightly more in-depth answer here, if you're interested.
5. For years, I was Christian just because that's what I knew. I grew up in the church, a Christian family, everything. When I left home, I realized I had to decide for myself if this was my religion or just my parents'. Over the years since, I feel like God has proven himself to me in a number of ways, to the point where I trust him.
6. I really think the most important thing is to love God and love people, not beat people over the head with their sin (nor make laws so we can punish them for it, for that matter). Beyond that, there's still a lot I'm trying to work out for myself.

I know this is scary (it is for me), but I do really, really want to both share what I believe and know what you believe. We put on these internet personas that are really only part of who we are. Sometimes I want to know the whole person, you know?

Likewise, I understand if you need to protect your internet persona by NOT talking about this. That's okay too. Feel free to say as much or as little as you like.

Lurker Week

As I write this, I have 97 followers, almost the magic number 100,* but (a) I'm pretty sure that many people don't actually read this blog and, more importantly, (b) I hardly know any of you.

So I'm devoting my three posts this week to getting to know YOU -- in serious ways, funny ways, and maybe even potentially uncomfortable ways (don't worry, you won't have to play if you don't want to). While I'm exceedingly happy to hear from my regular commenters, I'd love LOVE to hear from folks who read but don't normally comment (commonly called lurkers). I swear, you'll never have to comment again if you don't want. But if you just let me know once this week that, yes, you're reading my blog, it'll make me all kinds of happy. Even more so if I get to learn a little bit about you.

So today it's question and answer time for you. Feel free to skip questions you don't have an answer for. Post your answers in the comments (I will too--shouldn't this go both ways after all?):

1. Where are you from?
2. Favorite genre to read?
3. Favorite genre to write (if you're into that sort of thing)?
4. Which Star Wars character would you be?
5. Best book you've read in the last 6 months? 
6. Gandalf the Grey stops in for a cup of tea. What do you talk about?
7. Name up to 5 favorite movies.
8. Your pirate crew/ninja clan/former employer has given you the Black Spot. What do you do about it?

* Though 100 is really only magic in base ten. 97 is actually better: a palindrome in octal, the beginning of the lowercase characters in ASCII, the number of characters that can be typed on a standard English keyboard, and the seventh happy prime. (And really, how can you go wrong with something called a "happy prime"?).

Kids to the Rescue! (or Adults are Stupid)

Stop me if you know this one. A group of spunky, intelligent kids gets mixed up in a plot to destroy/kidnap/steal/control the world/their parents/other kids/a ton of money/puppies/etc, and the adults they would normally rely on to solve problems like this are dead/captured/kidnapped/stupid and/or otherwise don't believe the kids.

It's the plot all children's fiction must rely upon, because children's fiction must have child (or teenage) protagonists in order for its target market to enjoy it. And those protagonists must somehow become involved in an otherwise adult plot, even though they're not (adults, that is). It's the plot of Spy Kids, Goonies, Parent Trap, and every single Home Alone movie.

It's not always bad, but it can be done badly. It all depends on why the kids have to save the world instead of their parents.

LESSER REASONS

1. Adults are too dumb, disinterested, or just plain grown up to believe the truth. The spunky kids, then, must deal with the problem on their own, often with the parents working against them. I'm sure kids love this trope, but I can't stand it. It's insulting, sure, but it's also unrealistic and teaches kids unreasonable amounts of disrespect (says the guy who's had to parent kids raised on this trope). Examples: Home Alone, Parent Trap, Lost Boys, Goonies.
2. Adults are incapacitated or otherwise out of the picture, and the spunky kids must fill their shoes, even though they're totally unqualified. It's even worse if qualified adults exist, but are too dumb, disinterested, etc. to get involved. Example: Spy Kids.
3. Child of prophecy. The adults cannot save the world because it is not their destiny--even though they're more qualified. Example: The Sword in the Stone; The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe; The Hobbit; Lord of the Rings; Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers.

Not all these reasons are inherently bad. Combined with one or more of the better reasons below, they can work quite well. (Also I should point out that I really like Lost Boys, Goonies, and pretty much any plot with a Chosen One (Power Rangers notwithstanding)).

BETTER REASONS

1. Supernatural or unnatural ability. The spunky kid is actually capable of something nobody else can do. Their ability just happens to be needed before they have a chance to grow into adulthood. Examples: Harry Potter, Ender's Game.
2. Adults are incapacitated or otherwise out of the picture, but qualified adults don't exist, and the kids manage to win in spite of their shortcomings. Examples: Eragon, Star Wars.
3. Adults cannot be involved, either because the rules of the conflict don't allow it, or because the spunky kids will fail if the adults know. Examples: Jumanji, Zathura, Adventures in Babysitting.

If you're writing kid's fiction, the main thing is to think about why this kid is the only one who can save the world. Why are they the most qualified, or the only available option? Is it because they can do something no one else can, or because all the adults in the story are useless?

Anyway, that's just my opinion. How do you feel about this trope? Where have you seen it done well? Done poorly?

Quitting While You're Ahead

My favorite computer game genre by far is graphic adventure. These are the games where you're given a character with a story, and where exploration and puzzle-solving is what will win. Reflexes, practice, and endless hours on the XP treadmill won't help--just persistence and a clever mind. Classic examples of the genre include the King's Quest and Space Quest series, Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, and (my very favorite) the Monkey Island games.

But adventure games can be frustrating. You might walk around the same screens, looking at the same objects, trying out the same inventory items over and over wondering why you can't GET THE DANG PIRATE TO GIVE YOU HIS FREAKING GOLD TOOTH!

Or something.

Then after banging your head against the wall for an hour, you'll close the game because you have to pick your kids up from school, but when you get back... you don't want to play. Because you know when you do, you'll have that same puzzle staring you in the face, mocking you.*

Does this sound like writing yet? It does to me. I'll get stuck on a plot point, staring at it for an hour, then have to close the manuscript because the baby is crying and the boys are killing each other and my wife needs to buy food (I offer to, but you know)... and when it's all over I dread going back. I dread seeing that cursor just blinking, blinking, saying, "What are you gonna write now, big fancy pants writer, huh? HUH?"

So here's what you do. It's totally non-intuitive, but it works. When you're at a part you're really excited about, don't write it. Stop and save it for next time.

I mean, obviously don't stop if you have another hour free to write. But whenever you are done, try to stop in some place where you know what happens next. Not only will you have the motivation to sit down and write next time, but you'll also have momentum to keep writing after the exciting part.

This won't solve everything. You'll still need persistence many times (I was stuck on that stupid gold tooth for a week), but some days it just might help you get your butt in that chair when you otherwise wouldn't want to.

And if you need a little gold, give the blond-bearded pirate some bubblegum. His tooth will come right out.


* And you don't want to cheat, because then you can't brag that you figured out the game by yourself, even though it took you five years** to beat it and nobody cares anymore.

** NEVER happened.

This is How We Polish

Turns out this writing thing is subjective. Did you know that? So often what works even better than tips on critique is an actual example.

To that end, and because I have to daily read the same stories over and over and over, and because not all of these stories had the benefits of modern editing techniques (or so it seems), I'm going to inflict upon you the same bad prose my boys inflict upon me. Then I'm going to try and fix it.

Yes, I'm aware of how passive aggressive this is.

Before we get into this, note that I'm not a professional editor. I'm not even a professional writer (or I just barely am, depending on what counts). I'm not claiming I Know How To Edit. I'm just giving my opinion on how this could be made better.

Got all that? Let's do it. This is from the mind-numbing tale Garfield the Easter Bunny?*

      "Tomorrow is Easter, boys," said Jon Arbuckle to Garfield the cat and Odie the dog. "We've got to get ready for the Easter Bunny."
      Garfield and Odie watched excitedly as Jon took three Easter baskets from the closet and set them on the table. There was one basket for each of them.
      Garfield looked at his basket and frowned. "My basket is much too small," he said. "I want something about the size of a bathtub."
      "When we wake up tomorrow," said Jon, "these baskets will be filled with treats."
      "By the time you wake up, my tummy will be filled with your treats," thought Garfield with a sly grin.


Rather than do a line edit, I'm going to pick on three things and discuss how they can be fixed. Then I'll rewrite this my own way. Again, your opinion may vary, and that's totally cool. Subjective, remember?

1. Introducing the characters. All three characters are introduced in the first dialogue tag, but inelegantly. It's a mouthful to read and unnecessary. First of all, we don't need to know Jon's last name (especially since this is his only appearance in the story). Secondly, while identifying Garfield and Odie as the animals they are is important, it's awkward to do it all at once. In my example, I cut "the cat" and "the dog" entirely simply because there's a picture of them on every page--it's obvious what they are. In a novel, I'd suggest more subtle ways of telling the reader what they are. Odie wagging his tail or barking, for instance.
2. Dialogue Tags. You don't need a dialogue tag every time someone speaks. I see this a lot in children's books, but you don't need it there either. Kids are smart, and they read the same books over and over again. They'll figure it out, and by not holding their hand, you'll help make them smarter. So, if the speaker is obvious (as is often the case with only two speakers) you can simply drop a lot of the tags. If there's some ambiguity, use an action sentence to imply the speaker as I do in the example at the end.
3. Adverbs. I'm not a stickler for killing adverbs, but I think it's always a good idea to pay attention to them. When you see one, ask yourself if there's a stronger verb or noun that can be used, or if there's some other way the emotion (or whatever) can be expressed.

Here's an edited example, with my changes in bold. I made at least one change not covered by the tips above. See if you can figure out why.

      "Tomorrow is Easter, boys," said Jon to Garfield and Odie. "We've got to get ready for the Easter Bunny."
      Garfield and Odie watched wide-eyed as Jon set three Easter baskets on the table--one for each of them.
      Garfield frowned. "My basket is much too small. I want something about the size of a bathtub."
      Jon pat Garfield between the ears. "When we wake up tomorrow, these baskets will be filled with treats."
      Garfield smirked. "By the time you wake up, my tummy will be filled with your treats," he thought.


What do you think? Do you agree with my changes? What would you have done differently?


* I apologize if you like this book (or wrote it, or edited it, etc.). If it makes you feel any better, it's not the worst book in my house. And anyway, my boys obviously like it.

I Fear Something Terrible Has Happened

My first attempt at something like this. I'm afraid you'll have to click to enlarge.

Making Smart Goals

If you've spent any time in the corporate world, you've probably heard about SMART goals. I hate corporate buzzwords as much as the next guy, but seriously making smart goals is hugely important for writers (and, really, anyone who ever wants to achieve anything). It's an acronym: good goals are Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Timely.

SPECIFIC
You can't meet vague goals. "I want to be a writer" is not a good goal. How do you know when you've done it? Even "I want to write a novel" is kind of vague (how do you know when it's finished?). Good goals are clear and unambiguous.

MEASURABLE
This goes along with being specific. If you can't measure success, how do you know you've achieved it? How many words/pages are you going to write? How many drafts? What IS a draft (the first draft is obvious, but does running a spell and grammar check count as one revision)?

ATTAINABLE
Making attainable goals is a matter of practice. A good goal is realistic, but it also stretches you. If a goal is too hard, you'll give up and throw your goals away. If it's too easy, the goal becomes meaningless.

A good practice is to start small. See what you're capable of. When you can hit small goals consistently, increase them.

RELEVANT
This should really go without saying, but you'd be surprised. If my dream is to get published by a big publisher, I have to look at each goal and decide if it contributes towards that dream.

Selling short stories to professional markets? Relevant.
Publishing stories for free in a local newsletter? Aside from the writing experience, probably not relevant.
Publishing with a small press? Yeah, probably.
Self publishing? Probably not.

Tobias Buckell counted his number of rejections as a goal. On the surface, this would seem irrelevant -- you're not making progress if you're getting rejected, right? But to him, getting rejections meant he was producing and getting his work out there. Because "making a sale" was not in his control, he chose something that was, and it worked.

TIMELY
The most important way to make a goal measurable is to put a time limit on it. Without a time limit, there's no urgency. That goal could be taped to your computer monitor forever and ever, neither failing or succeeding.

The thing is, you can gain just as much from failure as from success. Maybe your time limit is too tight, or maybe you just have too many blogs to read or Facebook games to keep up with and you need to cut something (irrelevant) out. Whatever it is, if your goal has no deadline, you'll never evaluate and you'll never know.

So what are my goals, you ask? I'm still working on the larger goals (specifically the deadlines), which is a lot of the reason behind this post. But I keep daily goals with the idea that any kind of steady progress is progress. I try to do 500-800 words a day depending on how much planning/revising I have to do (I still have to figure out how to make a measurable goal out of "planning"). And I usually pick three or four things from my real life todo list to finish in a day. (That's about the best I can do, since most of my job is parenting. And if I've learned anything about parenting, it's that you can't plan it.)

So how about you? What are your goals, daily or long term? Do they fit the SMART criteria?