So we’ve all heard those “golden rules of writing” that seem
so completely vague, yet are so over-bearing that it makes writing or finding “good
literature” feel like work, right? And we’ve all had those people who made us feel like something we wrote/read and
loved was unacceptable or “wrong” somehow, by pointing out some vague rule or
concept that you had forgotten in a far back corner of your mind. You know the
person – the one who took a book you read or wrote and loved dearly and somehow
manages to rake up dozens of flaws in either the writing or the plot or the
characters, based on those vague-yet-overpowering-rules.
If you’ve been at this long – or even if you haven’t – you’ve
probably had a few of those moments (or, you know, more than a few. Possibly
your entire career as a writer/reader has been made up of them). Well, take
heart, dear writers and readers. I’m going to touch base on a few of them and
tell you why you don’t need to worry so
much about those things. And I’m also I’m going to be breaking open some of
our faulty thought processes as a culture regarding books and authors in
general (because, yes, I’ve fallen into the trap that is those pesky
misconceptions of “good writing” too). And
I’m going to do it using my newest novel – Echoes – as an example. [You don’t
need to have read Echoes to read this blog post, and it won’t have any spoilers
for if you do plan to read it in the future.]
To begin, you need to understand more about what Echoes is. It’s a hard book to categorize,
because of the strangeness of how it’s been written. The plot – while seemingly
should fit in a YA action adventure or SciFi category – somehow is tucked into
a contemporary novel. Odder yet, the writing style is a mishmash of poetical
prose and scattered comparisons that seem like they might better fit in a book
of poetry than an action-adventure-turned-contemporary. So how did I, the
author, think to cram so many apparently-random elements into a single novel –
and, even more importantly, why?
While the answer to those things is very simple – and will be
explained later in this post – the main thing is that it’s a book that’s not
only hard to categorize, but one that I’m expecting to get a lot of grief over
(and have already started getting messages about, over the “strangeness” of
it). It is weird – I’m totally willing to accept and admit that, to anyone who
asks about it. It’s not your normal cup of tea, and it doesn’t fit in the
normal boxes that books are “supposed(??)”
to fit into, and I’ll be the first to admit it. It blows off dozens of the “suggested
guidelines (which you’d better follow if you know what’s good for you, baby)”,
and I’m unapologetically aware of that fact.
So why did I do it? The answer, as stated before, is simple:
I wanted it to be realistic. And before everyone starts getting up in arms
about that statement, I’ll explain why I came to the conclusion that I did
about what ‘realistic’ is, by first explaining what realistic isn’t. To do so, we first need to delve
into what some of the common misconceptions and mistakes are, as well as some
of the misplaced “normalcy” of today’s writing atmosphere.
So let’s break it down into parts, shall we?
1. People Don’t Make Sense: One of the
hardest things about being an author (or a distraught reader who has just been
told their favorite character is unrealistic for reasons XYZ) is that you have
to break out of the expectations of what readers have been lead to believe is “realistic”
or “normal” for characters. Basically – we expect characters to make sense, all
of the time, regardless of the situation. But the thing is, people don’t make sense 24/7. We’re all a big ball of
twisted up, act-out-of-character, have-weird-days, don’t-even-know-who-we-are’s
that are constantly growing and expanding with every day that we live. And even
more confusing, we as readers expect to know every motive of every character,
even if the book is from a single POV. (But that’s maybe getting off-topic – a post
for another day.)
2. Mirroring-Their-Genre: If you’re
much of a reader, you’ll probably have noticed the same thing I have, and this
is that characters often reflect their genre (even if authors try to disguise
it with other little details that distract the reader). That is to say,
characters in Action Adventure novels are, more often than not, the “guns-blazing,
sassy, uber-brave” stereotypes. Characters in romance books are either the “dreamy-eyed,
obsessed with romance, searching for my soulmate” types or they’re the “I’ve
given up on love, it’s over-rated, roll-my-eyes-at-everyone, I want none of
this” types. Fantasy characters are the “I didn’t know this huge thing about
myself so now I feel super lost, I’m freaking out and don’t know what to do,
slowly-become-crazy-awesome-anyway” types. Whatever the genre is, you can bet
on it that the characters will reflect that genre, and if they don’t, people
will get mad over it or confused about it. They expect the characters to make
sense with their genre. (Because genre apparently is more important
than making realistic characters?) And while those types aren’t necessarily
bad in and of themselves, the common misconception that characters in those
genres have to be that way is. I know
I’ve gotten grief over it, both as a writer and a reader.
3. Just Make Sure Your Characters Speak, Regardless of
Their Personality, Okay?: So as writers and readers, we’ve all heard it the
old “balance your descriptions and dialogue, because if you don’t, that can
throw readers off” thing, right? And as readers, most of us have gotten
frustrated with a book that didn’t have enough dialogue or felt clunky because
it had too much, am I right? So obviously good books balance the two, yes?
Well, no. The current “popular opinion” is that books should balance the two, but it’s really just a side effect of what
our current culture likes – that is to say, things that are easy. Books with a “good balance” of dialogue
and monologue are the easy-peasy kind of reads that make reading a breeze. And
I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with those. As a dyslexic person and a
reader in general, I can tell you that when I started reading, those were the
only kinds of books I would read. Yep, I, too, fell into the trap of believing
that easy, perfectly-balanced books were the only good books. But honestly,
they aren’t somehow better than books with more of one or the other. Take the
old classics, for instance. Shakespeare is heavy on dialogue. Austen is heavy
on description and monologue. In fact, most of the classics veer much more to
the left, so to speak, and are almost all
monologue-heavy with little dialogue. And, I mean, if it was good enough to
get them onto the ultra-famous list, why is it now considered “bad writing”?
So now that we’ve touched base on a few of the things that
had made people question my choices as an author (and things that are currently
mistaken social norms), I’ll come back and touch base on those more, as well as
explain why I believe “realistic” is not at all what we, as readers, have been
lead to believe. To do so, I’ll be using my own new release – Echoes – as an
example.
1.
People Don’t
Make Sense: I wanted to make this book (and Emma’s character) as realistic
as I could. She’s a girl with a rather dark past and she struggles with a form
of PTSD, as well as a kind of social anxiety and general social awkwardness. On
top of that, she’s a huge introvert. That being said, her mind is a tangled
maze filled with minefields and dead-ends. She’s got a lot of trauma and she
has no background on which to base her internal thoughts, so she kind of…invented
her own, so to speak. She compares and contrasts everything she hears and feels
and touches, because that’s really the only way she knows how to think – and that
means her internal thoughts are weird, confusing or “bulky” feeling. She’s
weird and she doesn’t make a ton of sense – but that’s who she is, and I wasn’t
going to compromise that just to make readers feel like she was “realistic”. (Because apparently being realistic is…unrealistic?)
2.
Mirroring-Their-Genre:
Emma’s backstory is quite obviously Science Fiction, right? I mean, she’s
basically a cyborg assassin – very sci-fi stuff going on there. Yet the story
style itself is an odd mix of contemporary and poetic. The premise of the book
feels like it should be YA, yet it is confusing, complexing and dark enough theme-wise
to maybe fit more with an adult audience. “It’s like the author couldn’t make
up her mind!” …right?
No. I’m well aware of the
boundaries put forth by genres and the generally-accepted social “norms” for
books – and I laugh at them, to be honest. Genres make absolutely zero sense to
me. It’s like taking something that is supposed to be completely creative and
should reflect an author’s unique creativity and saying, “Hey, you can be
totally creative, but you have to stay in this box.” So…basically, if you gave
a little kid a coloring book, told them they could paint their own,
completely-original artwork…and then scolded them for getting outside of the
lines. Can anyone tell me how this makes any sense? Genres basically were
created around books that were previously written by saying “hey, this novel is
a similar style to this older novel, so let’s group them together!” And while
that was all well and good when it was just grouping novels into similar groups,
now that grouping is affecting the very characters in a story.
And I didn’t
feel like limiting Emma’s impact on her own story, just to fit into that
imaginary set of lines created by social normalcy. The style is written the way
it is because it’s befitting the character the story is about. I don’t write
stories in genres – I write stories about characters, and let the characters
themselves dictate what’s possible and what isn’t. So her past is SciFi, and
her present is poetical, and she herself is maybe a case-study of PTSD from
inside of the mind of someone who has it. Is that bad? No. Is it going to
confuse some people and maybe make them dislike the book? Sure. And that’s
okay. People can like and dislike things to their heart’s content, and there’s
nothing wrong with that. Does it mean I’m going to change how I write? No, it’s
not. I got into writing because it was freeing – because it’s the craziest, most
liberating, wackiest form of art. If
I changed just to fit into what’s currently considered normal, then I wouldn’t
be a writer anymore, and it would lose all pleasure for me.
3. Just Make Sure Your Characters Speak, Regardless of
Their Personality, Okay?: This kinda ties into the point above – I’m not going
to make my characters act or be a certain way just because it’s considered
normal or “right”. Emma is an introverted, socially-awkward, withdrawn human
being. She’s the type of girl who would sit in the corner at a party and never
say a word to anyone. And Echoes is about her, so the amount of dialogue is
going to reflect that about her. I’m not going to force her into having
conversations with every character in the novel, when that’s not who she is –
not even to satisfy the curiosity of the readers as to the thoughts and
motivations of those around her. And if that makes me a bad writer somehow,
then so be it. At least I’m being true to my characters, which I think is more
important anyway.
So the point? We need to stop giving up our unique creativity
to please the masses. Readers, if you love a book – love it, regardless of what
other people say is “right” or “wrong” about it. Writers, do what works for you, have your own unique voice, tell
stories from your prospective, from
your characters’ prospective, and
throw caution to the wind. You don’t have to feel pressured to do what is
considered “normal” and “proper” to be great.
The world doesn’t need more stories that fit into a tidy little box, where the
characters make “sense” (unrealistically), where the story is packaged into a
pretty little genre, or where they’re unchallenged to think beyond what they’re
used to thinking. And if people hate you for it, or want to tear apart a story
you love, then that’s their loss. There will always be those who just don’t
appreciate a story – those who have different tastes and thoughts and opinions –
but wouldn’t you rather be disliked for something that is truly your own, or a
story you truly related to, than disliked for a story you didn’t even pour your
heart into, nor really truly adored?
And readers – let’s stop labeling stories as “badly written”
just because they took creative license. That’s what writers are for, after all. If we didn’t push the
boundaries and try new things, we wouldn’t be writers at all. If you don’t like
a story, that’s totally fine. You’re very much due your own opinion, just as
much as writers are allowed to have their own style, but we should be cautious
what we label as “wrong” or “bad/poor writing”. A story that we might not have
liked or understood may be the story that saves another’s life.
Thank you all for reading! I appreciate every one of you.
<3 and if you’d like to give Echoes a try, despite its admittedly-odd style,
you can purchase it on Amazon here: https://goo.gl/6F2ccr
