Showing posts with label writing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label writing. Show all posts

Friday, August 21, 2020

PACT - A Way to Look at Playwriting

 Sharing a bit of playwriting philosophy.

This is a paradigm, akin to the four humours of the body in some vague ways, but I call it Aspects of Plays. Even comes with a handy acronym--PACT. Simply put I believe (or more accurately I personally perceive) plays having four major Aspects, one of which is nearly always primary. One can get into which is secondary, etc. if you really want to but I'm focusing on just the Primary.

Also, a playwright often develops more than just one, many giving almost identical attention to more than one Aspect, sometimes all four.

Re-read that last paragraph again. It will save time.

The Aspects are:

Plot
, i.e. the actual events that make up what some call the "actiona" of the story. I would say Moliere and Ira Levin are two playwrights who develop this most strongly, the former to some extent because he had to, the second maybe more because of his genre. Frankly, the vast majority of the feedback I get is focused on this, in a very formulaic way that I find sometimes very tiresome. Yet for all that I do attempt to have strong plots. "Plot" is not bad but it can (and this is what some folks--often trained for tv or film--find absurd) be secondary or even tertiary.


Atmosphere
is the feel of place, the "world" in which a play takes place. At heart I do feel Chekhov's great plays as well as most of August Wilson seem to me about their worlds more than anything else. I would go so far as to say these characters would be totally different, events utterly changed in you re-located these plays to another place and time. But this goes beyond time and place. It is also a sense of what is possible, and the "feeling" of the play's location. For example, are there women in the world of Waiting for Godot? Can one doubt there is a God in Murder at the Cathedral?

Character
is the other area where I get the most feedback, but often (weirdly) for statistical reasons, i.e. the notion that if a character veers too far from the average or a stereotype this is a failure. Meh. Insights into questions I had not asked, though, that is a treasure! But yeah, some playwrights do focus on characters, such as Tennessee Williams and imho Edward Albee, sometimes Eugene O'Neill. Events happen but fundamentally because of the characters, often with precision based on extremely specific character details leading to decisions informed not but mere self interest but the full spectrum of a human personality.


Theme
on the other hand is the idea about which the play deals. Frankly Arthur Miller and Henrik Ibsen are pretty clear examples of this. But this also has two different modes. Some writers explore a Question while others prefer to focus on giving an Answer. Ben Johnson is clearly one of the latter, in that his plays are clearly teaching a specific lesson. Shakespeare on the other hand is the former--he does not tell the audience what to think but engages them in a situation which excites their imagination.

You may disagree over my assignment of these aspects to different writers and I won't argue the point. My reason for sharing this is to explain how I personally see plays, including my own, and hopefully such a framework may offer something useful.

Thursday, January 15, 2015

About Dialogue

Opinions ahoy!

Forgive my pontifications, but one thing which ultimately hits a strong but subtle wrong note in stories and theatre is bad dialogue. By this (for now) I mean the lack of a genuine voice for characters.

As a playwright, I frankly regard dialogue as the single biggest aid for me to give the director and cast. Partially this comes from my study of Shakespeare, whose plays literally brim with clues and hints about how to perform them. One of the most obvious is when he either add or omits a beat from the ten beats of a typical iambic pentameter line. He always has a reason that for that. Always. Usually indicative of an extra stress somewhere, or sometimes a break in the rhythm for effect (Hamlet--the character--has a fair amount of this). Another lies in the way a regular ten-beat line is often divided between two (or more) characters--which means essentially don't take any pauses here.

But all that lies in verse. One can find countless examples in prose as well. Alas, too often you don't find them. So I'm going to pontificate and offer a guide, a series of hints to help fellow writers develop or hone their skills in this direction. Mostly a matter of questions to ask.

First, when does your character interrupt someone else? If they do such easily and often, clearly this makes them a fundamentally different person than someone who never or rarely does at all. But of course it must be more complex than that, yes? Yes! For one thing, you have more than two options--Often versus Never represents two poles, with an infinite variety in between. This in turn leads to specifics. Who will your character most likely interrupt, and why? More, under what circumstances? Even more importantly, how do they interrupt?  A polite raising of the hand coupled with the words "Excuse me, don't mean to be rude at all, but I feel something needs saying..." shows a very different personality than the sudden bark of "Wrong, wrong, wrong! You've forgotten something!" Likewise, a quick point of finger with an intense but unemotional "Question--if that were true, what prevents...?" displays a different one from a sudden rising out of the chair, eyes blazing and words spat between clenched teeth "How...DARE...you!" All different, albeit only a few of the many possibilities. All belonging in your writer's toolbox. Kindly remember while you're at it--characters will interrupt in different ways under different circumstances. The most well-rounded of such might use every single one of the previous examples. Every single one. But--why?

Possibilities abound! A teacher, for example, might interrupt the Dean in one way, their students in another, a sibling in still a third, their spouse in a fourth, their own children in another, and so on. Ditto a student, a priest, a carpenter, etc. This is hardly about choosing one option for a character, but understanding which options they tend to use and when.

Second, consider how good is your character's grammar?  Honestly, George Bernard Shaw sometimes takes this idea to almost ridiculous lengths. In Major Barbara for example he writes out lower class London speech phonetically, and while somewhat helpful this also can generate headaches. Yet in truth the basic idea holds. A person who says "Where are you headed now?" seems not of a different class but of a different personality than someone who says "Where you going to?" It might or might not indicate amount of education, but assuming someone in our culture and era, this person's attitude to speech and language comes through. Not a matter of carelessness, either. More a taste in terms of what is technically correct or maybe proper. After all, don't you perfectly understand both examples? A fairly easy pattern to note, yet not quite obvious, lies in the use of double negatives. Again, a matter of degree rather than either/or. "I don't have any pastries" certainly sounds alien in the mouth of someone who more usually will utter "I don't have no cakes today" just as will the equally ungrammatical "Now I don't have none cakes, I done told you." But this offers yet another area of nuance. What makes someone who uses (for lack of a better word) sloppy grammar start using absolutely correct grammar? Or at least try to (and perhaps fail)? Likewise consider the circumstances that might lead a person to start using double negatives or other grammatical errors (ending sentences with a preposition, for example).  Then again, think about those obscure forms of speech which, while correct, rarely end up used in day to day speech. If I were to go there (as opposed to if I was) or perhaps To what school is Henry going? (rather than What school is Henry going to?).

Perhaps most interesting is how all these reflect not only character background, but even more importantly character attitude.  Consider John Smith. A more generic proper name in English seems hard to imagine. Give him something to say. Anything. Preferably at least a sentence or two. Now, listen to John Smith say those lines in your head--but with variations. Suppose he says those lines as an interrogator--maybe a private detective, an attorney confronting a witness, a husband suspecting a spouse of adultery, etc. Or suppose he says them as a supplicant--speaking to a ill-tempered manager, a teacher upon whom he has a crush and feels hugely intimidated, a police officer when he knows there's an unpaid parking ticket from last year in his wallet, or so forth?  Perhaps he speaks as a salesman, as a professor, as a spy, as a would-be suitor? The line changes does it not? In fact, you'll probably find yourself wanting to re-write the lines.

Did you notice what I did there? I changed John Smith's role. This needn't indicate he has any one of these professions (although he might). Rather it notes what mode he's in at the moment, identifies the context of his lines. That context will always and forever remain vital--the history, the place, the time, the other characters listening, and where John Smith is at that moment in his own mind. Ashamed? Furious? Exultant? Annoyed? Drowsy? Terrified? Some combination? (Here's a hint--it is nearly always some combination).

Finally here's a list of different speech and conversation patterns from life. Some might never occur to you. Others you'll recognize instantly. Please feel free to add to the list! No doubt you know things I do not, and I'd appreciate if you shared!
  • Some folks never ask about others, but regale people with compelling details of what's going on in their own lives.
  • Some speak rarely, but when they do their words sound awkward, as they try and find the right wording on the cuff.
  • Some immediately ask questions, presuming others can answer in detail about their own plans and hopes and long terms goals as if giving a powerpoint demonstration.
  • Some have zero patience with any idiosyncrasy of speech with others, reacting with different degrees of patience while asking what the hell someone else is talking about?
  • Some always change the subject, not to themselves per se, but to areas and things that interest them, like pet theories or specific ideologies.
  • Some long to explode in rage and pain, but have learned to control themselves, with every tiny bit of politeness a subtle moan of pain.
  • Some litter their speech with things like "as it were" or "as far as I can tell" and other clusters of words that may come across as filler (but may have some very practical purpose).
  • Some demand precision in their speech, actually working out it has been nineteen and a half years since their sister graduated high school, not twenty.
  • Some overuse certain words such as "like" "that" "whatever" "so" "then" etc.
  • Some rarely use certain words at all, such as "I" or "need" or "evil."
  • Some scatter their conversations with homilies or reworked quotes, sometimes original little bits ("How are you" "Oh fair to partly clowdy")
  • Some people argue for the sake of arguing, sometimes to the point of not really paying attention to what they're saying (like the Pro-choice college student who won't even remember claiming parents should have the right to euthanize newborns if they don't like what they've got).
  • Some hate it when a subject changes and will steer the conversation back, regardless of whether anyone else wants to return there.
  • Some change the subject seemingly with every breath, and show little or no awareness they've done it. Or maybe they know they do it and apologize every single time--while still doing it.
  • Some state their opinions as fact, acting baffled and insulted that anyone could disagree.
  • Some are so interested in hearing what other people have to say they keep stirring the pot just to get others to reveal more of their ideas.
  • Some people vent all the time--when their computer isn't as fast as they want it to be, when a lightbulb goes out, when anything begins early or late--seeing this as healthy, viewing those who don't as possibly hurting themselves.
  • Some want peace, longing to avoid conflict save in the most joking manner.
  • Some people have real difficulty grasping metaphors or hyperbole, taking things quite literally even when hardly anyone else does.
  • Some frankly state certain subjects hold no interest and expect people to then not go there. Sometimes these folks accord the same courtesy to others--once someone states disinterest, they change subjects. Sometimes they don't.

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Writing About Love

Behold my entry in the AW February 2010 Blog Chain. This month's subject--Love.

Love stories in our culture are everywhere. Orson Scott Card in his excellent book Characters and Viewpoint made the point that when readers see two characters meet (usually of the opposite sex), they instantly render a judgment of whether these two make a likely couple (with advice to the effect of "be aware this is happening"). Likewise, anyone who has delved into the world of fandom should be aware of 'ships (as in "relation"). Fans so very much want certain characters to get together, whether such ever happens in the story or not. Spock and Kirk. Harry and Hermione. Buffy and Faith. Every now and then it even happens (see David Tennant's swan song as Doctor Who).

So writing a love story seems a pretty necessary skill in a fiction-smith. And not that many succeed, at least in my opinion. But then, I suspect my own ideas shape this perception. What many call "love" seems to my mind more akin to "coupling," that is, a pair of folks who form a kind of deep friendship that crosses the line into partnerhood and sex. Not a bad thing. Not at all! Quite delightful, in fact! But such does not meet my standards of what in The Princess Bride is defined as a reason to go on living. Think Cyrano and Roxanne. Aragorn and Arwen. Dekkard and Rachel. Dracula and Elisabeta. Willow and Tara. Susan and Maude. Eli and Oskar. Anne Elliott and her Captain Wentworth.

I'll admit it--when it comes to love I'm a softy in some ways. One of my favorite movies is Love, Actually. Another is A Mighty Wind with the melancholy, sweet tale of Mitch and Mickey at the beating heart of that film. Likewise, I adored the idea of giving the title character a love interest in How The Grinch Stole Christmas. I witnessed the blossoming (albeit rocky) romance between Ron and Hermione with pleasure, and remain fascinated by the pain-born passion between Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever and Linden Avery the Chosen.

More--and herein I get very personal--I have been in love. Before her untimely passing, my darling Colleen agreed to become my wife and to this day I regard myself as a widower. I literally needed to be medicated in the years immediately following. Only within the last six months have I even begun to think of women "in that way" again (and with profoundly mixed feelings).

Colleen fascinated me. We shared many but not all of the same interests. We made each other laugh. We enjoyed many of the same things. We both felt intense pleasure at the other's joys, and horror at any pain or sadness they experienced. If given a choice between my duty and Colleen, my choice would have been instantly in her favor. She was the missing piece of my heart, my soul. And without her, I feel maimed.

All of which sounds like the most over-the-top hyperbole, but happens to be true. I adored her. I still do. Her eyes and smile haunt me.

Capturing something like that in terms of writing proves daunting. Dozens of little hints can and do exist to help. One I like is the zodiac. Regardless of how you feel about calculations vis-a-vis birthdates and the like, a good book on the zodiac describes personality types with great skill. Frankly, not all the images make sense to me. So I make my own. Instead of Cancer (a crab) I think of someone being a Turtle. Bear feels more appropriate to me than Bull. Virgos become Unicorns, and so on.

But what makes the biggest difference, at least in my own writing, is some leap of the imagination that seals these two people together in some way.

One love story I've got on the back burner at the moment has its origins a few years back. It really has as its primary image a barely pubescent girl spying on a very young man (five years her senior) swimming in a pool at night. He doesn't know she's there. She hasn't met him, but knows who he is. And she instantly falls in love.

Another I'm working on (with a partner) began as a theoretical idea--a female vampire falling for human male--and then followed some images. They meet on a train, rather like NYC's subway. I frankly saw her initially as Felicia Day, with him as Elijah Wood. Initially, like I said. But what really clinched it for me was a simple phrase: A young soul (the vampire) meets an old one (the human).

Which in my mind makes crafting a love story rather like writing a poem--because it takes more than simply have the meter right to make the thing work.

Participants in the Blog Chain
Aimeelaine - www.aimeelaine.com/writing/blog DONE!
Charlotte49ers - http://www.amandaplavich.com DONE!
AuburnAssassin - http://clairegillian.wordpress.com/ DONE!
Breddings - http://breddings.blogspot.com DONE
*RomanceWriter* - http://staceyespino.blogspot.com/ DONE
Claire Crossdale - http://theromanticqueryletter.blogpost.com DONE
Collectonian - http://collectonian.livejournal.com DONE
FreshHell - http://freshhell.wordpress.com DONE
David Zahir - http://zahirblue.blogspot.com/
NEXT >>>>>>> Harri3tspy - http://spynotes.wordpress.com
Sneaky Devil - http://sneaks-myfantasylife.blogspot.com/
Frodo - http://annvevera.blogspot.com/
Upsidedowngrl - http://noellenolansblog.blogspot.com/

Friday, December 11, 2009

Wrap Up 2009



Just in time (almost) for my birthday, comes this entry into the AW Blog Chain for December. In this case, the subject is a wrap-up of the year 2009.

Financially, this year has been harder than I hoped. Big surprise, I know. In terms of writing, my biggest disappointment was a planned play adaptation of Sheridan LeFanu's Carmilla. Honestly, I was just dabbling with that idea but then someone all-but-offered a venue for the thing! Naturally enough, I got to scribbling! Until...it became obvious that he was offering absolutely nothing else by way of support, even though this would have been part of his event. Neither I nor any other "staff member" would receive air fare to New Orleans, nor room when we got there, etc. In other words all I'd have to do is spend a few thousand dollars I didn't and don't have.

Live and learn.

But I've made major headway on two other near-time projects. One is part of a projected series, tentatively titled (pretty firmly to be honest) Deep As Blood. Those who know me will not feel surprise to learn it a vampire fantasy set in the modern day. That is still in the outline stage, especially after (to my considerable shock) a secondary character went and grabbed center stage for the whole thing!

More advanced is my effort (chronicled earlier this year) in re-writing a 19th century potboiler (Varney The Vampyre) into an erotic gothic romance titled Baneworth. I'm showing three or four friends each chapter as I get it into the "acceptable first draft" phase, and their comments have been fascinating to say the least. (*waves* Thanks Monica, Lola, Rowan!!!) Don't know about the rest of you, but an emotional support system is vital in my writing. Really. Right now I'm working on a rough draft of Chapter Six, which has already presented a bit of a quandry. One of my characters is already so much more interesting than the "leads"! Hmm. Methinks I sense a pattern. So I'll need to bring certain aspects of the other characters into sharper relief then.

For the record, this year also saw my starting up this blog and the creation of my writer's website (still pretty basic, but growing--I quite like the design and how it matches this blog's). Likewise I joined AW this year, which is something of a godsend. Cannot tell you how long I searched for a message board like that one. Plus made excellent friends with Francesca Miller, whose website I designed.

A few weeks back was the anniversary of my beloved Colleen's passing. Last year I went to work that day and came apart for the next couple of weeks. This year, I stayed home and slept. And I feel better. Strategy? Time? Both? I dunno.

Lost Wanderer - http://www.lostwanderer5.blogspot.com/
Claire Crossdale - http://theromanticqueryletter.blogspot.com/
coryleslie - http://corrinejackson.wordpress.com/

bsolah - http://benjaminsolah.com/blog (PREVIOUS)
DavidZahir - http://zahirblue.blogspot.com/ (MOI!)
RavenCorinnCarluk http://ravencorinncarluk.blogspot.com/ (NEXT!)
Ralph Pines - http://ralfast.wordpress.com/
shethinkstoomuch - http://shethinkstoomuch.wordpress.com/
Lady Cat - http://www.randomwriterlythoughts.blogspot.com/
truelyana - http://expressiveworld.com/
misaditas - http://misaditas-novels.blogspot.com/
collectonian -
laharrison - http://lesleyharrison.wordpress.com/
beawhiz - http://beawrites.wordpress.com/
razibahmed - http://www.blogging37.com/
FreshHell - http://freshhell.wordpress.com/
AlissaC - http://alissacarleton.blogspot.com/
Aimee - http://writing.aimeelaine.com/



Tuesday, November 17, 2009

What I'm Writing...

I'm writing a vampire novel. Just started Chapter Six in fact and am pretty pleased at the progress. Check out the cool concept art at left!

Right now I'm at the stage where I'll let folks know what it is I'm working on, mostly in a blatant effort to generate buzz and therefore eventual sales. But there's also a reason psychological. I'm deliberately applying pressure to myself. Ah what a tangled web we weave when in writing we would achieve...!

Simply, in the 1840s a "penny deadful" novel titled Varney The Vampyre saw the light of day. At over two hundred chapters (that's right -- CHAPTERS) this best-seller proved a pivotal work in vampire fiction. With it began the whole trope of the Reluctant Vampire, as well as stuff like a portrait providing a clue to the vampyre's human identity and a team of intrepid would-be Slayers visiting a crypt as part of their anti-vampiric operations. Plus lots more. It really is a seminal work in the genre.

Unfortunately, it is very poorly written.

Look to the right. Among the links under Elsewhere On The Web is a blog devoted to Varney, in which an intrepid soul is going through the work offering her (very entertaining) commentary on each chapter. She'll show what I mean about the "poorly written" part. A few examples: Varney has something like seven different origins. Characters change names, subplots lead nowhere, major characters vanish for no apparent reason, the whole thing is chock full of compound complex sentences in the passive voice. And so on.

Having finally read Varney The Vampyre about the same time as someone mentioned the Darker Passions series and coinciding with the publication of Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters, an idea grew inside my mind. Such is often an omen. This was no exception. My notion seems relatively simple -- edit/adapt the original manuscript into something better, or at least something I'd rather it be. Arrogant? Well, yeah. Not an accusation I can truthfully deny, but on the other hand perhaps that is a necessary ingredient for my writing.

So--I titled my novel Baneworth. The family the Vampyre "haunts" for much of the first third enjoys the name "Bannerworth" but I wanted something more gothic. Rather than recreate the entire opus (which seriously loses the plotline after a time), my focus would be on said family. Along the way I nailed down a specific origin for the vampyre, along with cutting some superfluous characters (as well as truckloads of meandering incidents involving lost matches and the like). Likewise, the story takes place circa 1815, during the Regency. And because my sensibilities associate the undead with eroticism, the book is not simply a vampire story but also a kind of romance.

Regarding this last, allow me to state a preference or three. Frankly, what displeases me most in too many attempts at erotica remains the instant beginning of mechanical descriptions of coitus. How dull. What makes something sexy is not the act but the context, the story, the seduction and discovery. In other words -- foreplay. Hence my decision to write Baneworth with a gradually increasing air of sensuality. Part of that involved laying the groundwork for different potential couplings, yet allowing for uncertainty. Really, I'm not against formulas in fiction. Not at all. But at heart such should be a tool, not a set of laws. Without going into details, it seems to me that if you hint that A and B are getting together and they more-or-less do, then all the effort you put into C and D should lead up to some really startling surprise. For example, perhaps C and D are in fact rivals for the affections of E who in turn desires F. Expectation must be created if the writer is to thwart it effectively.

Writing Baneworth will probably take many more months, but my hopes are high. Wish me luck!

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Underused Tropes

Complaints about tropes in fiction usually consist of those so common as to become dull. Yeah, we've all seen the Reluctant Vampire, the Evil Twin, the Mary Sue, the Lost Heir to the Throne, etc. But what about the opposite? Elements of story-telling so little-seen (often with a reason, even if not a good one) that a successful use of them could not help but seem fresh?

Mind you, I'm reminded of the DVD commentary on the live action series The Tick. When that show started out, the executives gushed. "How original!" "This is ground-breaking!" "We've never seen anything like this before!" But then the ratings began to slide, and those same execs became repeating those comments, but instead of praise they intended criticism. "Seems too original." "Maybe this is too ground-breaking." "Problem is--no one's ever seen anything like this before..."

So taking all that follows with a grain of salt might be a good idea.

To start with, I'd love to see some exposure for the Eastern Orthodox Church. Actually, that name is something of a misnomer. There are about fifteen or so Orthodox Churches who share communion, but who are each headed by a Bishop considered equal to all other heads. Yet despite local differences of custom and language, those fifteen agree on all major issues of doctrine. To be baptized in one means you may take communion in any. Yet this, the second largest Christian denomination in the world, might as well not exist in terms of English language literature, television and film. Offhand, I can think of only three depictions of Christian Orthodoxy--all of them extremely minor (they are Bram Stoker's Dracula, one episode of BBC's Poirot, and an episode of the re-imagined Twilight Zone). None of these even vaguely hint at Orthodox beliefs, not coincidentally. And therein lies the real shame, because this (certainly one of the oldest of Christian churches) carries some fascinating insights. To give a single, brilliant example (which, to be fair, was an element in one major film I can think on) is the notion that God did not make Hell, but that Man did--when men reject God's love, into which they return after death, that rejection is what creates Hell. Damnation, in other words, is a direct result of who you are, not (necessarily) what you do.

Another trope methinks we see far too little of is the Ethical Corporate Executive. As I recall, there was one on The West Wing, and way back in my childhood there was a marvelous series called The Name of the Game, with the "hero" being the CEO of Howard Publications. Offhand, Lucius Fox of The Dark Knight is nearly the only recent example that comes to mind. In fact, this trope was probably over-used in the 1950s, and one can understand how much more easily it is to use this figure as a villain. But after a certain point, it becomes worse than sloppy story-telling, this can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once the idea that working in business is unethical becomes commonplace, then the ethical are less and less drawn to business as a career. An oversimplification? Yes. But with more than a grain of truth behind it as well. My own bet is that the vast majority of corporate bigwigs are just these folks doing their jobs--with the same sorts of foibles, strengths, pains and joys as the rest of us. Not reflecting that seems like imaginative laziness. At best.

Next up is something rarely seen as anything other than the butt of a joke or as an indication of some character's inherent twisted-ness: Male submission. One can pretty easily find the trope of women who secretly (or not so secretly) long to be taken, to submit to someone stronger than themselves, at least in terms of erotic play. One can every now and then spot positive depictions, such as the movie The Secretary with Maggie Gyllanhall and James Spader (great film, not-so-incidentally). But even a casual visit into that subculture reveals how very many more males are looking to be slaves to ladies, than the other way round. Makes sense when you really think about it. Do you fantasize about being yourself? Or about being something you're not? Culturally, men have the upper hand in our civilization, so men are more likely to have dreams of submitting (I've been told by someone who ought to know that there are many more submissive males than there are dominant females to fulfill their desires). Yet this aspect of sexuality all around us remains hidden, or at least deliberately ignored.

Methinks I'll have more examples for a later post.

Saturday, October 31, 2009

Writing Survival List

This is my entry in the November Blog Chain for Absolute Write Water Cooler. In this case the subject matter will be a Writing Survival List, i.e. what I need as a writer. For me, this will focus on what I need to write fiction (as opposed to, for example, this blog).

Oh, do I write fiction, you ask? Well, yes. Plays, screenplays, fanfiction, and now I've got two full-length novels in the works -- one a reworking of the 1840s "penny dreadful" Varney The Vampyre. But details on that for a later time...

Writing, for me has four parts (and each of those innumerable other parts but this is a blog post not a book-length exploration of writing). Each has their own needs.

First is Inspiration, which can take hundred different forms. I may contemplate an actor or actress who always plays a certain role and imagine them in a vastly different one. Or I may read or see a story with a perfectly good premise, IMHO botched during execution. More likely, some little detail with attach itself to the stuff that has fascinated me for years and years. Either way, to get that inspiration what I need most is plenty of exposure to the world--to history, to news, to a variety of people, to different places as well as a lot of fiction itself, of whatever media.

What follows, once a trail is found, is the exploration of said trail. I call this (with a singular lack of imagination) Research. It can easily take up years. Truth to tell, often what interests me most are things at which I don't have that much first-hand experience. Well, have you lived in Regency England? Or know that much about about lighthouses? All that is part of understanding the "floor" upon which I'm getting ready to dance. It is an uneven thing, that floor, and dancing there without knowing it very well risks a broken ankle. Or neck. Some might disagree but to me research includes fashioning background details that exist only for the sake of the story. There isn't really any large island off the coast of San Francisco named Cuervo Vista, but that doesn't mean I don't need to know that island very well. Interestingly (at least to moi) much of the plot gets worked out in this phase, arising from details discovered or invented (although they all feel discovered, to be honest).

Third (in process but not necessarily chronologically) is Percolation. I also call this Simmering. Which reveals my penchant for cooking. What has been learned needs time to jell, to brew into something the conscious mind wouldn't do on its own. Connections fuse together never considered before. Points of view shift. Some preconceptions evaporate while new imperatives make themselves felt and heard and seen. Since, alas, a relatively small portion of my life is spent actually writing, this is my way of using the rest of that time productively (in ways other than earning money to pay rent, washing clothes, etc.).

Fourth is Composition, no less complex (i.e. ofttimes weird) than the other three. Putting the words together into sentences, paragraphs, descriptions, outlines, conversations, chapters, and the like. Physically, this does require a writing medium (the word processor is the one I'm used to--in another age the quill would have done) as well as time with a minimum of distractions. Sometimes music helps set the mood, or words of art in and around my workspace. Caffeine in the form of chocolate and coffee blended together with plenty of dairy.

Such is what I need. These are my keys to survival as a writer, in other words to write. I look forward to reading what others in the chain have to say...

Participants:
1. DavidZahir - http://zahirblue.blogspot.com/
2. shethinkstoomuch - http://shethinkstoomuch.wordpress.com
3. Lost Wanderer - http://lostwanderer5.blogspot.com/
4. aimeelaine - http://www.aimeelaine.com/
5. Ravencorinncarluk - http://raven.youareannoying.us/
6. Bsolah - http://www.benjaminsolah.com/blog/
7. Charlotte49ers - http://www.amandaplavich.com/
8. Angyl78 - http://jelyzabeth.wordpress.com/
9. truelyana - http://expressiveworld.com/
10. Claire Crossdale - http://theromanticqueryletter.blogspot.com/