Million Dollar Outlines Review

Million Dollar Outlines, by David Farland.  In short, I'm very glad I bought it.

In more detail, then.  David Farland starts off with what might appear to be a digression -- why do people read?  In reality, he gets to the heart of why people read in order to figure out what authors need to do in order to deliver to people what they are looking for when they read.  His conclusion?  Without nuance, to be put through an artificially stressful time for a good emotional payoff.

Emotional payoff is a theme that recurs.

He then covers audience research, including a lot of information from his days as a movie consultant.  This includes the emotions different audiences want to experience (statistically, at least), and how to look at what is selling well now in order to try and figure out what audiences are looking for.  This can be done with movies, TV shows, and books, though caveats apply to all of the analysis.

Also included are some ideas and tips on characters and plotting.  I thought the tips sections were well done in general, though of course they weren't the primary point of the book.

Then the outlining sections start.  Farland walks you though why outlines might be needed and the benefits they bring.  He continues with developing the outlines, including working on them over multiple passes and rearranging them at times in order to make them work better.  Near the end, he takes you step-by-step through the process he uses to develop an outline.

He then finishes with an appendix containing tips on moving from the outline to the completed novel, and a few items of note -- including some analysis of Lucas and Speilberg's discussions when trying to develop the concept and plans for the first Indiana Jones movie.

The book has me excited to try out some of the techniques, and also to try and combine them with another book I recently read, Story Engineering.  I have little doubt that my stories would be better with some more pre-planning and a little less seat-of-the-pants writing.

Some minor critiques I have would include the fact that the story plot graphs aren't very well explained (or perhaps I missed the reference to the book that would explain them).  I have a feeling I've been missing something with these, as I've seen them referenced more than once.  Then again, I might be able to pick up the idea from the book itself.  Also, reading the book on my b&w kindle made some of the graphics included for the plot graphs be less than illuminating, though the main points were easy enough to follow.

Mistakes Waiting to be Made

I seem to be referencing articles talking about movies a lot lately, but another one came to my attention the other day.  From tor.com, a number of mistakes movies make that can throw people right out of the movie:

I’m not talking about the “sound in space” problems or never-ending ammo. Just weird niggling details that remind you all too easily that what you’re watching isn’t remotely real.

Some of them, of course, are very movie-centric -- sounds in the wrong place or the wrong sounds is one -- but it's possible that any of them might show up in writing as well.  After all, a writer is describing the sights and sounds to the reader, and if the writer describes a metallic ringing as the hero draws her sword, well, that's the same error as listed in the article.

The cash problem mentioned is another that some novels do well, some novels gloss over well enough you don't notice, and a number of them somehow have the heroes with enough money to stay at inns on an extended voyage with nothing bringing them income.  It may be slightly easier for written works to fix, also, unbound as they are to the visual medium that is movies, and thus able to add in an aside or two that takes care of the problem.

One of them hit directly home for me, however.  Number four, about the lack of smoke for many blazes.  I'm currently editing one of my short stories that, wouldn't you know it, takes place inside a burning building.  And after reading the article, I realized I don't have enough smoke in the area.  Granted, for most of it I don't have open flames visible either, but the smoke is an insidious challenge -- and therefore something great to add to the story to make the hero's life even that much harder.  Needless to say, I'll be making another pass through the story to cover that as well.

Be sure to read the comments as well, as they cover some other points related to, or even not mentioned  in, the article.

The ones that stood out for me in particular, other than those mentioned:

• Getting beat up should have lingering repercussions.
• Parchment is too valuable to burn in most cases, and much harder than paper to burn anyway.
• Characters running around with their fingers on the triggers of weapons -- or, alternately, cocking the gun/chambering a round too many times.  This is beyond the classic six-shooter with 13 bullets problem.

4 Levels of Art Consumption

So, I've been going through the Hulk Smash articles (at least some of them) since my enlightening discovery of his confusing blockbuster article.  In this article on the levels of art consumption, Hulk talks alot about spoilers (in various non-spoileriffic* ways), but how he groups the levels of consumption (or appreciation) are interesting to me.  Paraphrased, the given levels are:

1. Experience [art] with childlike naiveté.
2. Callused by repetition, but still seeking the experience from 1.
3. Transcended above 1 & 2; able to contextualize the emotional experience and think about why it is so (the "critic class").
4. Those who understand the craft of creating the [art].

I've always enjoyed reading, and in good stories I'm still in group 1.  I may sometimes be in group 2 (those are the biggest complainers about spoilers, according to the article), but I don't think I'm often there.

However, as a writer, where I want to be when reading a good story (fiction or "true-life", the important part is the story) is in group 4.  Group 3 is good, and a nice step toward group 4 if necessary, but if I want to create stories, I want to be one of those who understand the craft of creating the stories.  It's where I aspire to be, and when I'm in my critique groups, trying to fulfill the function of group 3 as best I can, is when I try to practice actually being in group 4.  However, I should practice on other stories, even or perhaps especially on the ones I love.  It may be hard to avoid being pulled in to the story, but if I take it slowly and work on it, hopefully I can pull it off.

It's also important to note that group 4 for writers can still be applied to movies and TV shows, since it's the story that matters, though there are obviously some techniques that don't work well on the screen, and some techniques that don't work well in novels.  It's still a source of practice for understanding the story and how it's constructed, and I should take advantage of that as well.

Finally, one of the best bits from the article, about group 2:

THEY LONG TO FEEL THE EMOTIONS THEY ONCE HAD SO EASILY AND CHERISH MOVIES THAT CAN MAKE THEM FEEL THAT WAY ONCE AGAIN. [...] BUT THERE ARE ONCE AGAIN MORE CONCERNS. LIKE THE  FACT THAT THIS IS THE LITERAL PATHOLOGY OF DRUG ADDICTION (IE, CHASING YOUR FIRST HIGH AGAIN AND AGAIN TO DIMINISHING RESULTS).

Yes, perhaps it's best to stay out of group 2 as much as possible.


*"non-spoileriffic" and "non-spoilerrific" both pass the spell check filter, but "alot" doesn't?  What computerized world do I live in?

HULK SMASH: Blockbusters

From Film Crit Hulk Smash: THE AGE OF THE CONVOLUTED BLOCKBUSTER:

ALL OUR BIGGEST POPCORN MOVIES SEEM DESPERATE TO STRIVE FOR OBFUSCATION. AND AS HULK RECENTLY WALKED OUT OF A SCREENING OF STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, THE DEPTHS OF THIS REALITY HIT HULK DEAD ON… 

WE LIVE IN THE AGE OF THE CONVOLUTED BLOCKBUSTER.

I'll say it right out: this is a wonderful demolition of recent blockbusters that end up making little to no sense, either in the movie theatre or after (I'm not versed enough to call it a trend, though Hulk might be).  The impetus seems to be Star Trek: Into Darkness, which I saw a couple months ago and had a few problems with (pointed out superbly in this article as well).

Still.  Some of the main points from the article can easily be applied to writing novels as well as the screenplays.  Such as:

SO WHEN WE LOOK AT THE STORIES IN ABRAMS’ WORK WE DON’T FIND MUCH IN THE WAY OF STORY AT ALL. WE FIND PLOTS. IT’S ALL MASTER SECRETIVE PLANS BUILT ON REVEALS UPON REVEALS UPON REVEALS. [...] WE WATCH FILMS WHERE THE MECHANICAL PLOT DICTATES CHARACTER REACTIONS, RATHER THAN CHARACTER’S ACTIONS DICTATING THE STORY.

and

BY OBFUSCATING CLARITY IN THE NAME OF A GRANDIOSE PUZZLE, WE CAN’T HELP BUT GET IN THE WAY OF THE OPTIMAL EMOTIONAL RESONANCE IN OUR STORIES. WE MAKE THEM FEEL LIKE CONSTRUCTIONS.

and

THERE'S CAUSE. THERE'S EFFECT. AND THOSE TWO THINGS ARE  GROUNDED IN A THROUGH-LINE OF TRANSPARENCY BECAUSE IT STEMS FROM LASER-FOCUSED OBJECTIVES THAT GUIDE THE SHIFTING NARRATIVE. AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, THERE’S ALWAYS A POINT TO ALL OF IT, AS THE ENDGAME OF ANY GOOD MYSTERY HAS TO RESONATE.

and... and... and just read the article, alright?  I can't keep quoting it or I'll just be reprinting the whole thing here, practically verbatim.

But on to the practical parts.

Which has more inherent drama, a stranger telling you he is your long-lost brother and being chased, or your actual brother you've known your life telling you he is being chased by cops?  By analogy, when a mystery person has things happen to them, we care less, but when a character we've come to know has things happen to them, we're invested.  This requires setup.

About reveals:

ALL A WRITER NEEDS TO MAKE A REVEAL WORK IS TO ASK TWO SIMPLE QUESTIONS: “WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC CONFLICT BEING CREATED BY NOT KNOWING THIS INFORMATION?” AND “WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC CONFLICT CREATED BY NOW KNOWING THIS INFORMATION?” AND DEPENDING ON THE STRENGTH AND VIABILITY OF THAT CONFLICT YOU HAVE YOUR ANSWER ON WHEN TO REVEAL.

...and in the course of reading the article find out how Finding Nemo could have been a huge flop.

So what do you think?  What are the best pieces of writing advice you find in the article?  Or can you convince me it's wrong, somehow?

August Goals

Herewith my writing goals for August.

1. Read at least one book on writing.
2. Continue to write every day (at least 250 words)
3. Summarize my notes from a writing book (this month's or last)
4. Critique at least 6 submissions
5. Apply lessons from a writing book to at least 2 stories
6. Get at least 2 submissions critiqued
7. Revise two stories
8. Do a title exercise on at least 1 short story

For (1), I've got a bit of a head start, since I finished one writing book while on vacation, and got the first couple chapters of the next started.  I can't remember if it was at the very end of last month or the start of this one, but I'm going to count it as this month.

I'm excited about the books, both last month's (Million Dollar Outlines) and this month's (Story Engineering).  I'm ready to start analyzing my stories again, and trying to figure out how to improve them even more.

I do plan on submitting at least one story, though I'm not making that an official goal because I don't know how long it's going to take me to work through all the issues found in my current frontrunner for submission.  Now that I have another of my favorites finished, though, perhaps it will get some love as well.

July Goal Retrospective

I initially typoed the headline as "gaol", and while that may sometimes be an accurate indication of my feelings toward goals I set up for myself, in this case I don't think so.  As Freud would no doubt say, sometimes a typo is just a typo.

• 250 words written a day -- Done!
• Revise 3 stories -- 1 revised twice, and 1 finished.
• Clean up email -- nowhere close
• Critique >= 6 short stories or submissions -- Done!
• Get >= 2 stories critiqued -- 2 stories, but one of them again after revision.
• Renaming exercises for story titles -- 0.
• Submit >= 1 story -- 0.

Regarding submitting, I had big plans and had the story picked out (the one I revised, got critiqued, revised, and got critiqued?  Yeah, that one).  Fortunately (or not, depending on your point of view) when I returned from vacation, it was to an evisceration of how I used a given profession in a modern setting, but somebody who obviously knows more about that profession than I do.  It was great, and it gave me much to think about, but in the meantime I don't feel I can submit something that I know has flaws that I can fix.  It will just need a bit of time, that's all.

Hugo 2013 Reviews: 2013 by Kim Stanley Robinson

The last of the Hugo-nominated books that I read, and in many ways one of the largest.  I haven’t read any of Kim Stanley Robinson’s other books, so I don’t know how common this style is for his writing, but I gather that they generally span quite a range of places and people.  What I would call epics, though the term is usually used more with fantasy than with sci-fi.

The world-building was far and away the strongest part of this book, in my opinion.  The many ways that people might adapt things in space to allow humans to live there (and adapt humans as well) were considered, and by the end of the story large amounts of them had been shown.  So far as I could follow it the science (of the parts we can know right now) was accurate, and I trust that people who can follow more than me probably verified it as well.  It’s that kind of story.

What it isn’t, as much — again, in my opinion — is anything much of an actual story.  To me, it read a lot more like “stuff happened” than “connected events leading to a revelation or change.”  As presented, changes happened aplenty, and the POV characters may even have been integral in some of them happening, but for the majority of the novel the POV characters weren’t acting toward causing many of those things to happen.

Analyzed from a promises/resolutions point of view, the novel started with Swan’s life disrupted from losing a family member, and you could say that the rest of the novel was her gaining a new one, forging a new connection in the world.  On the other hand, you could say the inciting incident was Swan’s grandma dying, and the resolution being the fruition of her plans.  So far as I recall, neither was given much prominence by Swan herself, which means that neither played strongly.  It might have been a novel of Swan finding herself, or finding her way, but again Swan doesn’t appear to be dissatisfied with much that gets resolved by the end of the story.  She doesn’t appear to change, and with the majority of the book from her POV, that gets rough for me.

Other side characters, and even POVs, eventually get woven into the end of the book, but I will admit to heightened expectations after seeing the good reviews the book had received, and so I was kind of expecting a bigger bang of colliding plot-lines at the end.

In the end, 2312 reads more like “a year in the life” book, with a few other POVs thrown in and some pastiche material added from the world-building notebook, than it does a story with a defined beginning and end.  There must be people that this appeals to, but I am guessing I’m not one of them.  The ideas were grand, but the story did nothing special for me, so in the end it falls to the bottom of my rankings.

1: Redshirts
2: Blackout
3: Captain Vorpatril’s Alliance
4: Throne of the Crescent Moon
5: 2312