AIRSHIP 27 PRODUCTION PRESENTS THE BATTLE FOR STORMREST

In this, the second novel in the Chronicles of Altiva, writer Teel James Glenn continues his epic saga. In the highlands of Umbria, the new leader of the Clan Shoutte, Erique, battles both the outside armies pitted against his realm and the spy operating within his own ranks. Trained in a foreign land as a healer, Erique’s leadership is severely tested as he attempts to unite the various clans into one alliance which he sees as the only salvation for the destruction they all face. Added by his dearest friend, Dame Arinna Cabal, his sister Cather and the warrior ruler, Uta, he will make a valiant stand against the dark forces of the Shadowcasters.

AIRSHIP 27 PRODUCTIONS – PULP FICTION FOR A NEW GENERATION!

Available now from Amazon in paperback and soon on Kindle.

LGBTQIA+ Writers, Characters, and Books

Hey, LGBTQIA+ writer folks!

For the next roundtable, I want to talk to you in particular. I want to know what the independent and small publishing world looks like for you.

Do you feel welcome in the world of independent and small publishing? At cons, in stores, sales? Why or why not?

October Santerelli: I feel welcomed by authors and readers, and given lip service by some small press who claim they want to be more inclusive and don't demonstrate it or big houses. I mention ace or queer characters and people pick up the books just to read about them, so I know I have stories readers want! Cons are good, stores have not been great, I keep getting brushed off. My sales are phenomenal when I get in front of people, but I feel like algorithms and some sales folks and such are just...suppressing LGBTQ+ content or ignoring it.

Inka York: In the online world, I definitely feel welcome. There are some great spaces with excellent support, authors lifting each other up, and readers throwing themselves into ARC and street teams. I can't speak for cons or bookshops because they're not a priority for me. Most of my sales are ebook (like 99% of them), so my most recent releases don't even have print books.

Sarah Marshall Malluck: I feel welcome as an independent author at cons and sales tables. Most people will let you know if they are not interested in a same-gender couple.

I also write MF pairings, so my sapphic/mm romances don’t sell as well to my audience that reads the MF pairs. I find most readers like to read set tropes, couples, etc. Myself included. I’ve read almost exclusively MM romance for about two years now. Of course, some readers will read anything in a genre. It’s about finding the audience.

I’ve had more pushback on writing about witches than homosexuals. I live in GA by the way.

DL Wainright: Cons are my bread and butter, when it comes to book sales, and I typically feel very welcome at them. There's often at least one pride flag on my table at events, and it doesn't seem to deter many, and in fact draws many in who are seeking stories with representation. I can't speak about small publishing or any of that, as I self-publish, but I know many folks who publish through smaller print presses which specifically exist for queer fiction. Because I'm self-pub, I'm print-on-demand, which most stores won't carry without specifically asking them to. A popular local bookstore carries my stuff without any issue. At first, though, they put it in the queer lit section and I had to suggest they either move it to horror or YA, so they moved it to horror. That was the only hiccup. 

What in your mind goes into a book being LGBTQIA+ focused or friendly? Must it be written by an LGBTQIA+ writer?

Emmy Anthony: An author in the community helps. Characters that are more than a stereotype are very important. My female protagonist has a gay male best friend but he is not the rom-com comic relief. He protects her and loves her like a sister when she needs it most, for example.

DL Wainright: It used to be that we basically had two kinds of stories that contained queer characters: mainstream books where a queer character was a villain or comic relief, or "queer lit," which was heavily focused on the queer experience. But nowadays there are very mainstream stories where the protagonists are queer, and it isn't about THAT, it's about the standard hero's adventure. I often bring up She-ra and the Princesses of Power, and I'm going to do it again here. That story has a ton of queer characters, including She-ra herself, but the story is about the conflict between different factions and the threat of Hordak, etc. Stories like that, I don't think need to necessarily be written by queer authors. But if it's something like traditional queer lit, where it's about the EXPERIENCE of being queer, then that's a subject for own voices. Basically: anyone can write about a princess who saves the world and falls in love with a cat girl, but only someone who is bi should write a story about a girl in high school who's struggling with her bi identity. That's not to say the princess can't be struggling with her identity, too, it's just about framing and what the actual focus is of the narrative.

Evan Peterson: While there is definitely the presence of misconceptions and microaggressions within the alphabet towards other parts of the alphabet, I still find myself much more wary of cis-straight writers writing queer characters. I won't avoid them, but I do approach them more guarded and prepared for disappointment. 

Inka York: I don't write LGBTQ+ fiction, by which I mean my books are not about BEING LGBTQ+, so I don't market/categorise them that way. I write queer casts, stories about kicking angel/demon/vampire/whatever butt while being queer, or paranormal pirate adventures but everyone is gay. And I write these queer casts because when I was growing up I didn't have books where everyone was as casually queer as they were casually cishet.

I genuinely don't care what people write, but if I'm reading LGBTQ+ focused books, I favour own voices because authenticity is important to me as a reader. I don't think it's my place to tell other authors what they should and shouldn't be writing.

October Santerelli: It doesn't have to be written by an LGBTQ+ person! One of the best books I ever read was written by a middle-aged cisgender Christian mom in her 40s. The queer character was a side character and helped the main character realize human is human and love outweighs intolerance. What makes a story LGBTQ+ friendly is giving us stories outside the stereotypes and letting us and our existence help tell a tale, any tale. Humanizing us. I feel like LGBTQ+ focused is coming out stories, queer romances, etc. Things that inherently focus on the aspect of queer as a story-driving element. But any story with a developed character who is LGBTQ+ is queer-friendly.

Sarah Marshall Malluck: For a LGBTQIA+ focused book, the writer needs to tell the story in an authentic way without villainizing the character because of their sexuality. I mean the character can be the antagonist as long as it’s not tangled into their LGBTQIA+-ness. Anyone can be a dick.

As for friendly, treating characters as you would a cis/straight character is important. Don’t make a big deal about it. Like “This is my friend Bob and his boyfriend Pete. Can you believe they met at the post office?”

I highly suggest hiring a sensitivity reader if you write a character that you do not have a similar lived experience (this includes different cultures and race). I hired a sensitivity reader for my sapphic romance even though I’m pansexual, because I’ve been in a straight passing relationship for 20 years now. I want to be respectful.

Continuing from that previous question, what are some issues you have seen -- both helpful and harmful -- that ally writers who aren't living in the life of an LGBTQIA+ person do well or do poorly? What more can they do to be an ally who is a writer?

Inka York: This may ruffle some feathers, but I think LGBTQ+ authors are just as capable of writing harmful messages as allies. We're not a monolith, and some of the hate is coming from inside the house from folks who, frankly, should know better.

I can't say I've read anything glaringly horrible from an author who's a known ally, and if their sexuality/gender identity isn't known, I'm not gonna go looking. There are enough readers and authors out there trying to gatekeep queer stories by outing authors or forcing them to out themselves, and it's repulsive.

I always recommend authors get a sensitivity reader or two if they're including experiences vastly different from their own. It's easy to say "avoid harmful stereotypes," but you don't know what you don't know. If you're not part of the demographic yourself, you may not be aware of the nuances of microaggressions and dogwhistles, for example. Casual inclusion of side characters is enough if allies want to add representation but would feel out of their depth doing more. Just acknowledgement that we exist and are normal like everyone else. There are online groups to help with that too.

October Santerelli: In my work as a sensitivity editor, a lot of what I see is trying to step into a lived experience they don't have. It's easier to write about a trans person from an outside perspective if you are cis and have met a trans person, it's harder to get in their head and write the genuine experience of it without said experience. I see them want to include representation without knowing how to do do without making a huge deal out of it, too, but some of my favorites have been when characters talk about their two moms or casually mention a boyfriend. I love, as an example, the jock in the movie Paranorman. The whole movie he is a stereotypical dude bro, the cheerleader is flirting with him, at the end she asks if he wants to go see a rom-com sometime...and the jock goes yeah, can my boyfriend come? He's a chick flick nut. No big drums, not even making a scene about it at the start, just letting this character be who he is and letting it come up naturally in the story. The more normal you write us, the more normal we seem!

Sarah Marshall Malluck: If an ally asks questions of the community while writing, they tend to create a better story with realistic characters. You can spot a writer who makes assumptions pretty quickly. Not all non-binary people are androgynous. Don’t write all your LGBTQIA+ characters to stereotypes.

An ally who is a writer should be open about their work, don’t back down when people are openly homophobic/transphobic, do the research, do the work, and accept constructive criticism. Allys need to step up and openly support the community.

Evan Peterson: If you're straight and cisgender, are you intentional in why you want to include queer characters? Do you have a strong circle of queer friends/family/peers who give you firsthand awareness of our lives and struggles and who would feel safe calling you in of you wrote something harmful, stereotyped, or problematic? I question how a cis straight writer can write honest queer depictions without really knowing the queer experience. Utilizing sensitivity readers (I hate that term) could also be helpful. And most important, listening to criticism when it comes without succumbing to the knee-jerk reaction of getting defensive is an important quality for all writers to have, but even more so for those who are writing any marginalized background they haven't themselves experienced.

DL Wainright: I have seen straight authors force a heteronormative perspective onto queer couples in narratives (basically, assigning one person the "male" role and one the "female" role, despite the actual genders of the couple). People also like to demonstrate that the guy is trans by making him short and fae-like, and that the woman is trans by making her really tall. And, like, I'm trans masc and am taller than my cis husband. My point being that cishet authors tend to very obviously be affected by this erroneous perspective that we have been fed in narratives for a very long time that all boys are like A and all girls are like B and that's just how things are. When in truth humans are gloriously diverse. There are cis women who aren't typically effeminate in the way that would fit that box. Likewise, there are cis men who don't like or do the things men are "supposed" to like and do. When we say that gender is a spectrum, that encompasses every aspect of one's gender, including how they present, and how they "perform" gender. I think a great first step for a cishet author, in helping them improve how they write queer characters, would be for them to start breaking out of boxes when it comes to even just writing cishet characters. Look around you at the people you know, not at characters in shows. Look at your family and your friends. Really consider how varied they all are in how they dress, their interests, their relationship dynamics...but also look at the similarities regardless of gender. And I want to note, I'm not asking for "She's not like other girls" kind of stuff, I'm asking for more realistic depictions of human beings. Once you can do that with cishet characters, then you will be better equipped to try your hand at folks who challenge the norms even more. 

Emmy Anthony: We can all work on non-gendered or neutral characters. Fourth Wing by Rebecca Yarros has several bisexual characters and that fact is only acknowledged in terms of which dorm room they happen to be seen sneaking out of. I like that. Sexuality isn’t someone’s whole identity.

Mari Hersh-Tudor: One of the most egregious sins hetero writers commit is the Character Cliche: it’s lazy writing that depends on the reader’s brain to fill in the details by sketching an outdated incorrect empty wrapper instead of writing a fully nuanced actual character. Examples include the power-tool-toting bull-dyke with a buzz cut and a flannel shirt and a red pickup truck. Or the effeminate gay man in pink bunny slippers with a lisp and a muffin bakery.

These are extreme examples but dead giveaways that the author is a cishet without a clue.

LGBTQ characters are just *people,* folks. That kid next to you on the bus. The old lady feeding squirrels in the park.

I don’t believe that LGBTQIA books are required to address certain issues or have a minimum body count of non-cishet characters. While that’s certainly an established genre, there’s plenty of room for good solid fiction that just happens to have a more accurate population.

How is the publishing world changing for you? Is it becoming more or less accepting? Do you find readers to be more or less progressive when it comes to gender identity and sexual identity culture?

Emmy Anthony: I as a romantasy writer feel pinned. I would like to have a gay/lesbian main romance arch but the majority of readers seem to expect heterosexual main characters with LGBT friends.

DL Wainright: The reason I self-published was because back when my first book came out, it was like how I described before, where books with queer protagonists had to be about the queer experience itself. And mine wasn't, it was about monsters that ate people and a group of queer young people dealing with all of that. So back then, no agent was interested because they wouldn't have been able to sell it. Now YA is booming with queer content, and I've had agents express interest in whatever I come out with after this series (as they can't use something already in print). The publishing world is definitely changing, with YA leading the way when it comes to quality queer representation. The market targeted towards adults is getting there at a slower pace, likely because of the differences between generations when it comes to views on queerness. If you go to cons, you can often find indie authors with adult books featuring queer characters, because that's unfortunately still their best option until the publishing world catches up. Talking with customers at cons, I fully believe the market is there, especially considering that Millennials are aging (I'm in my 40s, for example), and we're a generation that's very queer and want to continue reading stories with representation beyond things for teens.

Mari Hersh-Tudor: I find the publishing world has some welcoming established genres for queer characters, and that’s a definite improvement from 50 years ago. I don’t see much that breaks out of those safe lanes, though, like a serious gay James Bond, for instance.

Cons and fairs are much more welcoming than they used to be.

The paradox of having established queer lit genres means that those have become the only acceptable outlets, and god help you if you try to publish a round peg that doesn’t fit in those square holes. So while there are more outlets, they are narrowly defined and can be restrictive.

Sarah Marshall Malluck: Being an indie author, I find that readers are becoming more progressive. There is a higher demand for books with diverse gender identity and sexual identity. I also think these next few years will be difficult for authors who write in that space due to the political climate. But this is not the time to hide. I can pass for a cis straight woman, but I choose not to because there needs to be more voices to push back against the chaos. I want people to know I’m a safe space should they need it.

October Santerelli: Right now, the industry is a weird mix. A lot of places are becoming more hostile, I've seen some small press in solid Red states pulling back from publishing or acquiring these stories. But then there are places like Penguin putting out open, unagented submissions for books by queer authors and more small houses and imprints starting just to lift our voices. There's a push in both directions and it's going to get rough. There's no doubt about that. Readers themselves are just as divided. Videos asking for more queer authors, Trans Readathon, and booksky influencers who love their rainbow flags are just as common as influencers telling people to DNF books as soon as they see queer content, people trying to ban books from libraries and bookstores, and people threatening, harassing, or questioning queer authors. A friend who is a MULTIPLE TIMES NYT bestseller dreads podcasts about their work because 9 times out of 10, they are asked why someone is queer and they hate having to defend our existence in a story by one of us for us about us.

Inka York: I write a lot of romance, and readers lap that shit up. Queer media is doing big numbers all round, so yes, I think the audience is becoming more accepting. I'm not focusing on those who are less accepting because they're not my people. I don't think about them at all. I only care about my readers and those with the potential to become my readers.

The biggest change for me in recent months is that readers are coming around to the idea of buying direct from me. Direct sales for fiction was virtually unheard of a few years ago, but that's not specific to any niche or demographic. It's just an observation. LGBTQ+ folks have a tendency to be more sceptical of big corporations dipping into their pockets than the population at large, though, so I think they're more willing to support creators directly. I think we're going to see big movement in direct sales and subscriptions over the next few years.

Movie Reviews for Writers: Kate Chopin: A Reawakening

Full disclosure. I teach Kate Chopin's The Awakening every year to my students when we reach our unit about literature as protest. And I fully believe her work is as seminal to the feminist experience as the works of Langston Hughes, W.E.B. DuBois, and Zora Neale Hurston are to desegratation. Not only that, it's a master class in writing outward clues to the subtle inner life of a character who is only slowly growing to actually DO anything as an act of her will. 

Okay, that said, I found this awesome documentary for my students to watch to introduce her work. So, now you have to suffer... I mean jump for joy through it too.

There's a bit from The Awakening that I think applies here to Kate herself, both as a woman and as a writer: "She was beginning to realize her position in the universe as a human being and to recognize her relations as an individual to the world within and about her."

That's where we all start as creators though, isn't it? If we don't realize our positions as an individual with something worth saying and how crucial that message might be to the world within and around us, then what's the point of writing anything at all? It would be as empty as shoveling air into a truck for load after load all day as empty trucks drive off and return for another load of nothing. 

Write What You Know

From that kernel of knowing she was a unique individual with something to say, Kate found a voice that began with the stuff she had experienced and knew something about. 

Say's the narrator: 

"On the eve of the 20th century, Kate Chopin confronted the fundamental dilemma of what it meant to be a woman. In a stream of stories and in her novel, The Awakening, she explored the unsparing truth of women's submerged lives."

What Kate knew was what it meant to be a woman in the late 1800s, valued merely as a mom or wife, judged by housekeeping and childrearing with little thought given to dreams that may have reached beyond that cage. This idea wove into her work, from short stories such as "The Story of an Hour" and "A Pair of Silk Stockings" to her magnum opus novel The Awakening. 

I would guess that she wasn't trying to start a movement, just tell the kind of story she could relate to and she figured maybe other people could as well, society be damned. 

As the documentary voiceover tells us, "Chopin's stories were set in Louisiana in the aftermath of war. It would be a landscape she would draw from memory in the final years of her life." Perhaps that is why her settings seem so effortless and precise. And not only the settings but the people who, well, peopled them. As Barbara Ewell says:

"There was great demand for short fiction at that period, and one of the genres that was most popular was the one known as 'local color,' which offered descriptions of the varied parts of the country, exotic parts of the country. It was pretty clear to her early on that it was her southern stories, her Louisiana stories that sold... While the land inspired her imagination, her time there was limited."

No matter how limited, her experiences in New Orleans offered characters and settings to explore.

And explore them she did.

After her husband, Oscar, and her mother, Eliza, died, Kate was alone with six children to support on a modest income. In the 1880s, writing was one of the few ways women could make a living, averaging from "$l5 to $30 a story, and a few hundred for a novel" according to our narrator. So, at 45 years old, Chopin started on the path toward becoming a published writer.

Her first work was a poem that appeared in January 1889. However, she soon learned that her short stories were what was in demand -- and were her most successful published works. 

Write Passionately

Chopin's writing was not just filled with well-described settings and people though. It had a passion that was part of who she herself was. She chose short stories as a form because that's where her passion lay. 

Says Barbara Ewell: 

What drove Kate Chopin was her passion for writing, and her willingness to let writing take her into places that she had never been herself, necessarily. And certainly, the literary traditions out of which she came had never really gone.

Adding to this, Elizabeth Fox-Genovese says: 

She's one of those writers whose sense of craft puts her right on the edge of poetry... The writer she especially admired was the short story and novella writer, Guy de Maupassant, who perfected a kind of writing that she took very seriously.

'Here was life, not fiction," she wrote in a private diary aout the novella writer Guy de Maupassant. "Here was a man who escaped from tradition and authority, who had entered into himself and looked out upon life through his own being and with his own eyes; and who, in a direct and simple way, told us what he saw."

Write To Change the World,
(Even If It's Not Intentional)

In 1897, Chopin began work on her most ambitious novel, The Awakening. Understand, Chopin did not set out with the goal of becoming a feminist writer. Truth be told, she probably couldn't have told you what a feminist writer was, if such a thing existed in the zeitgeist of her times. What she did set out to do, however, was to tell stories about the human beings she knew inside and out -- people who just happened to be female and who just happened to be denied the very right to the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness their husbands, fathers, and even sons could grasp on a daily basis. 

Elizabeth Fox-Genovese says: 

"With Chopin the dark crannies of the human soul were part of what is to be human. It was part of her war against platitudes. If you look only at the surfaces you're not going to begin to understand what people are about. It's a measure of both her talent and her character, her strength as a woman, that she didn't find the depths of the human soul, even human depravity, threatening."

Through Edna, Chopin wrote of what a life awakened to the idea of embracing the daily joys might mean... for a woman. Sure, a man could also identify with her needs (if you don't believe me, read Edith Wharton's Ethan Frome -- I once did a paper on how similar these two awakenings are), but to a woman reader, the story takes on an additional meaning, one that a man will not typically be able to identity as missing from his own life. 

Barbara Ewell says of this: 

Its spontaneity, and its physical demands opens up Edna to places in her heart and in her soul she'd lost contact with, maybe had never known were there...

I don't think any other writer of the period, certainly no male writer, and I don't think any other woman writer tried to understand what happens when a woman experiences her own sexual being and her own self. And of course, that's exactly the tragedy and the dilemma that Chopin is exploring in her fiction which is, what happens, how do you get past this, this bind for women that if you possess your own self, if you possess your own body, you know that the options the society offers you are marriage and death.

By novel's end, Edna has awakened to herself, but finds no place for that self in the world she knows. She swims out to sea till her strength is gone.

For Edna, awakening can bring only defeat. The world will simply not allow her to not be a "mother-woman." For Kate Chopin, the novel was something of a defeat as well. While there were a few positive letters and reviews, by and large, the reviews were critical and somewhat scathing. Americans, it seemed, simply were not ready for such emancipated fiction. 

The question was whether Americans were prepared to read such emancipated fiction. There were a few positive letters, but then the critical reviews came in.

David Chopin says of this: "They destroyed her spirit when they came out with all this adverse reaction and one of the newspapers called it pure poison and not fit for babes, and there was an awful lot of criticism."

The world isn't often ready to see change happen. 

Says Barbara Ewell: 

"Once you begin to push against those margins, against those limits, you begin to offend people. You begin to offend convention and expectations, and that's exactly what Kate Chopin ran into with The Awakening."

After such an unforgiving reception of the novel, Kate disappeared into her private life and became more or less obscure in literary circles. 

However, in the late 20th century, her work was rediscovered. Stories and books came back into print, and they found new audiences and new acceptance, even praise, among the critics. Not only that, her stories were being taught in schools, and let's be honest, that's what really brings a writer back from the etherous void.

So, even if she never saw it in her time or even approached writing as a form of protest or world-changing action, she accomplished it just the same. 

According to Emily Toth: 

I'd first read her when I was given a copy of The Awakening by a woman who said to me, "You should read this book," and the big question that we asked ourselves was how did Kate Chopin know all that in 1899?

Can you imagine someone asking something similar about you in the year 2099? Why not?

Heroes Fall

Yesterday was a tough day for a lot of writers I know. We all knew our patron saint of oddness and quirky stories had fallen from grace, but yesterday's article at The Vulture (sadly behind a paywall, but there's an archive version here) wasn't the icing on the cake -- it was the cake itself. Everything up to that point might as well have been the printed recipe card. Yesterday we actually tasted the cake and wanted to spit it out to keep from gagging. 

Be warned, several of the articles contain descriptions of sexual assault and harassment. They can be difficult to read, so exercise caution if you can be triggered by such. 

The author in question has been seen as an ideal for literary weirdness, an icon that proved writers didn't have to sacrifice their souls on the altar of "accepted markets" to find success, a proof text that writers could be true to their visions no matter how warped or weird or whacked out and still make it on their own terms as creators. And he was loved for that. 

Sure, little stories popped up as warnings here and there, but even in the "during" and "after" parts of the #metoo realization, no one really wanted to believe it, not about HIM. Surely, just this one time, maybe, surely, pleasepleasepleaseplease, let it be some kind of conspiracy of hurt feelings lashing out. 

Alas no. 

And now we must swallow the cake, as bitter and vile as it is, evidenced in the following articles (not behind paywalls):

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn01dynqx7ro

https://variety.com/2025/tv/global/neil-gaiman-allegations-sexual-assault-1236272893/

https://www.avclub.com/neil-gaiman-sexual-assault-allegations-details-report

I've known writers who have shared stories about Neil, not #metoo level stuff, but icky enough to make me wonder. On the other hand, I've heard lots of tales about how wonderful he was to meet at conventions or book signings too. That's what made this whole thing so hard to process. 

But, in light of the consistent and growing number of allegations, it's time to side firmly and vocally with the victimized. 

For some, that may look like throwing away all your Gaiman books and stopping watching shows based on his work. 

For some, that may mean you keep what you've enjoyed and you refuse to support any new books or new television/movie projects.

For some, you may still have the freedom and distance to separate the man from his art and enjoy the stories. 

For some, it may simply look like a few more months or years of processing that some will no doubt see as you being overdramatic because they just can't understand how deeply this affects you. 

Now, some will compare this to JK Rowling's recent fall from grace regarding her transphobic hard-line rants (seemingly meant to intentionally alienate her previous fans and celebrity connections), but some will draw lines between them and seek to delineate how different they are. For me, no distinction matters. Not really. They both have been revealed to vile people. 

However, it's not my place to tell you how to react. I'm going to be busy enough with the mote in my own eye. If anything, both of these situations are warnings for me to keep an eye on my own life. Let's suppose one day the dream of being recognized as a world-renowned writer comes true. What kind of harmful words or actions can folks drum up against me (and rightfully so) at that point? If anything, this is another bell ringing to tell me to be true to the things I believe and to watch my words in interviews and conventions and to be on guard how I treat people both in my private and public life.

I mean, nobody's perfect, as the cliche goes. I can find something to revile in the lives of many of my favorite writers. Flannery O'Connor. Shirley Jackson. Ernest Hemingway. F. Scott Fitzgerald. Racism. Sexism. Physical abuse. Homophobia. History is filled with writers who fail(ed) to live up to the ideals that fans foist upon them. And it's not just short story writers and novelists. So many of the comic book writers I grew up on have turned out in recent years to be MAGA redhats (or perhaps that should be asshats) who stand staunchly against most everything I stand for in terms of women's rights, racial equality and equity, LGBTQIA+ causes, humanitarian issues, etc. So, learning to reevaluate my support for and enjoyment of certain authors is nothing new. 

But, at least in my mind, that never excuses any kind of abuse or vileness. And make no mistake, what has transpired in this case is vileness, purely and utterly. 

What does it all mean for this blog?

Well, this blog has referenced writing advice and writing tips from Gaiman in the past, and there are several posts that show up with his name as a keyword. I will not be removing the previous posts but this blog will no longer reference Gaiman or his work, except in the interest of updating news about this story as it develops.

Motivational Monday: Shut Up in Rooms

[Link] How to Avoid Author Intrusion in First Person

by Becca Publisi

Author intrusion happens when the author butts into the story to address the audience directly, interrupting the character who’s supposed to be narrating. Sometimes this can be used deliberately to create a certain effect. CS Lewis, Jane Austen, Lemony Snicket…it works for them because it’s purposeful. Deliberate.

As with so many writing problems, intrusion becomes an issue when it’s accidental—when we, the author, meander outside of our character’s viewpoint and start sharing things the character wouldn’t share. For instance…

I tucked my curly black hair into its cap.

This description won’t quite ring true because every narrator is intimately acquainted with the color and texture of their own hair. When they’re talking or thinking, they’re not going to reference the particulars. If I inject those details into the story in this way, the character is no longer narrating. It’s me, the author, interrupting the true storyteller to get information across to readers. 

Read the full article: https://writershelpingwriters.net/2024/11/how-to-avoid-author-intrusion-in-first-person/

AIRSHIP 27 PRODUCTION PRESENTS THE MOON MAN VOL. 3

During the days of the Great Depression, the suffering endured by the people of Great City seemed to rain only upon the downtrodden. The elite rick continued to live the high life while their fellow citizens scrambled to get food to eat and a roof over their heads. Police Detective Sgt. Thatcher considered this injustice and decided to become a modern day Robin Hood, stealing from the rich to give to the poor. 

Thus he donned a fish-bowl like one way dome of argus glass and became the notorious Moon Man, one of pulpdom’s most unique heroes. Here, in this new volume, the Moon Man, and his sidekick Ned, take on a madman treasure hunter, aviators duped in committing crimes and a crooked lawyer. Three brand new tales of action and adventure by David Noe, Jeremy Lamastus and Kevin Findley continuing the saga of the weirdest avenger of them all; the Moon Man.

Artist Ted Hammond provides the cover and Jeff Dobberpuhl the black and white interior illustrations, book design by Rob Davis.

AIRSHIP 27 PRODUCTION – PULP FICTION FOR A NEW GENERATION!

Available now from Amazon in paperback and soon on Kindle.

Series Work and Genre Hopping

Knowing so many writers the way I do (both in person and through your work), I know that some favor series work and like to go back and revisit the same character(s) over and over again or the same genre repeatedly. Others tend to leap all over the place, from one new character/world to another and bouncing between genres with the kind of abandon that can risk whiplash. Let's talk about that, shall we?

Do you have a preference between writing a series or writing unconnected stories, particularly those involving different genres? Which genres have you told stories within?

Scott Roche: I write in multiple genres. I've written sci-fi, lit fiction, horror, fantasy, urban fantasy, gaslamp fantasy, superhero stories, romance.

Lucy Blue: I really hope that the stranglehold of the series is finally coming to an end. 'Cause I hate them. As a writer and as a reader. But publishers, be they mainstream or indie or the algorithm of the 'Zon, just adore them for all the same reasons Hollywood does--once you've sold that can of beans, you know how to sell that can of beans, even if the cook changes the recipe a bit with every shipment. 

Amelia Sides: I prefer writing stand-alones in a similar world or a series of characters then series, but series seem to be what publishers want.

Paul Landri: Everything I've done so far has been a series. Crimson Howl is superhero pulp fiction and lends itself well to the serial format. My Simon and Kirby project is, of course, a serial since it's based on their comic books. I tend to stay with one particular genre until it's finished until I move on to my next project which will likely be horror with a historical bent (Al Capone vs. vampires? Samurai vs. zombies? Oh hell yeah!)

Matthew Barron: I tend to get bored doing things that are too similar, so I might revisit characters and worlds but I like to explore other things in between. I've written urban fantasy, horror, high fantasy, science fiction, short stories, plays, books, and graphic novels.

Sean Taylor: I much prefer to write non-series work, especially series work in the "epic" category. I have less vile for a recurring character in a series, a la James Bond or Ms. Fisher in standalone stories than I do for a multi-part series that needs several volumes to tell its tale. Not everything has to be the freakin' Lord of the Rings, even in fantasy. I do however like to go back and revisit certain characters, but only when I have a new story to tell for them, such as with Rick Ruby or with some of my superhero folks from the iHero/Cyber Age Adventures days. 

Rachel Burda Taylor: I like series, but I go back and forth between a series that follows a single character/couple and a series based in the same world and loosely following a world-problem but with a different Protag/LI and stand-alone plot for each book.

Aaron Rosenberg: I do bounce between genres, but I also write both standalone novels (and short stories) and series. There are times when, even if I love a character, I know their story is done—DuckBob is one of those, I revisit him in short stories occasionally but the novel arc was four books and finished. Other characters and their stories are a one-and-done, not because I don’t like them as much but because the story is told and it’s time to move on. I couldn’t write just one character, series, or even genre ad infinitum but there are plenty of characters and stories that I feel warrant more than one book, and I do revisit my favorite genres a lot.

As far as the genres themselves, I’ve written: urban fantasy, epic fantasy, dark fantasy, near SF, far-flung SF, space opera, superheroes, action-adventure, spy thriller, mystery, Western, romance, cozy, humor, and probably a few I’m forgetting. 

Ef Deal: When I create a cosmos, the characters lead full lives, so once one conflict is resolved, there’s no reason to assume there won’t be another one. When I wrote my first novel, it ended by setting up both political and ecclesiastical conflicts that my MC didn’t think would involve her, but I realized would absolutely have to involve her, so I began writing more stories. They are all standalone, but they are also sequential. I have planned nine novels in that series so far.

My current work is a steampunk series and again it evolved into a series because the characters were all involved with external affairs that created more conflicts. They have histories and futures. I have to tell their stories.

Brian K Morris: As a reader, I've loved series books (Doc Savage, The Shadow, Mack Bolan, Remo Williams, Captain Hawklin, Abraham Snow, Code Name Intrepid, etc.). As a writer, however, I've only recently begun work on a series, simply because certain mechanics of recurring characters (exposition-wise, mostly) intimidated me until recently.

Ron Thomas: Series for novels. One offs (that might be revisited) for short stories. Genres: action/adventure, sword & sorcery, science fiction.

Julie Cochrane: I like series fiction. It's what I like to read and what I like to write.

That said, some jumping around is, for me, necessary because at some point I can't continue to write a series while trying to sell the first book in it. There's just too much risk for me. So that has me, now, reaching out to do something different so I can keep writing while querying agents.

Also, there is the realistic possibility that trad publishing may look at my current work and say, "Meh."

I need a plan B, and that turns out to be something very different.

I've written military SF of the cloak and dagger variety and now I'm really feeling it for urban fantasy.

John French: Over the many years I have been writing I have created several series characters, many if whom have found their way into their own collections, which is another advantage. When I'm behind a vendor's table, I find that people like to buy books about the same character, and if I have more than one book about that character, they sometimes buy more than one or buy another when they come back. 

Bobby Nash: I do both. Series are fun because you get to revisit the characters again and again. Readers also enjoy series so they can keep up with characters they love (or hate). There is something fun about a stand-alone though. Even my series book wrap up the main plot in each book. I play in most genres. It’s fun.

Susan H. Roddey: I love the idea of a series, but it never seems to work out well for me in execution. I tend to get bored a little too easily. Most everything I write starts out standalone, but eventually evolves into something that could have additional books. The problem is, it puts too much stress on my ADHD squirrel brain and I end up falling off with everything. 

Tamara Lowery: I personally prefer writing a series. I love spending prolonged time with characters I've created, getting to know them and making their lives difficult. Of course, I've had immense fun writing the few short stories I have. I do have a couple of stand-alone longer works I wish I had time to get to. There's just not enough time to dedicate to everything.

The two series I do have published and in process are both action/adventure, but one is semi-historical dark fantasy that I intend to take more towards grimdark as it progresses. The other is steampunk episodic fiction. I have an epic fantasy stand-alone awaiting my attention as well as a dystopian slightly political stand-alone in the wings.

What are the advantages (both marketing and as a writer) of doing a series?

Lucy Blue: Every book I've ever published with a NYC press has been part of a trilogy, and most of the indie ones I have, too, but not because I wanted to. Right now I have an ongoing cozy romantic historical mystery series, The Stella Hart Mysteries, and the first book in a new medieval romantasy series, The Dragon's Wife, is coming out on January 15. And I love all of those books and loved the experience of writing all of those books. And the Stella books have been some of my most successful. But my southern gothic horror book, The Devil Makes Three (which has also done pretty well) is very much a standalone, and I loved writing it that way.

Tamara Lowery: The advantages of series from both marketing and as a writer is a chance to more fully develop characters, events, and settings. From a marketing standpoint, it lets readers know that there will be more story, a chance at prolonging their escape to another world.

Ron Thomas: I hope that book 1 makes book 2 more sale-able and so on. (I have a nine-book deal, so I need to keep growing readership.)

Susan H. Roddey: In this market, a series is definitely advantageous if you get it in front of the right audience. Read-through seems to be the biggest draw, especially with Booktok being as insanely useful as it is. The primary DISADVANTAGE of a series is that there are a lot of readers who won't even start it until it's completed, which messes with sales algorithms and frustrates writers. It's part of why I prefer standalones -- both as a reader and a writer.

Rachel Burda Taylor: Advantages of series are that they are easy to get reader follow through from one book to the next, since the readers get hooked. As a writer, I really enjoy exploring my worlds (even the contemporary ones) and it's impossible to thoroughly do that in one book. I also like the feel of a bigger plot that moves from one book to another. World-building, if complex, is also just really time-consuming so a series cuts that down.

John French: I prefer writing about series characters, even when writing short stories. It saves my from having to create new characters and settings, which is one of the advantages of having series characters. 

Matthew Barron: Readers who like a series tend to come back for each new installment, so it might be easier to grow an audience that way.

Bobby Nash: Readers love following series, especially if they love the characters. When asking someone about their favorite series (book, comic, TV, or movie), it’s rarely the plot they talk about, but the characters. “I love the Bosch books” for example. Marketing a series can cover multiple books at once.

Brian K Morris: Marketing a series seems to be easier because it's mostly preaching to the choir. You would have a built-in base of readers and from there, you can attempt to grow it. As a writer, I find I don't have to pack EVERYTHING I want to say with a character because there will be other opportunities to make those points down the road.

Aaron Rosenberg: It’s a LOT easier to build a brand if you’re writing in a single genre, and even easier if you’re writing a single series. That way, anyone who finds and likes your work knows exactly what they’re getting when they pick up the next book.

Sean Taylor: The biggest advantage I can see is the marketability. Fans want to follow the next book, because fans really dig series. And as long as fans drive sales, publishers will dig series too. To me, though the whole enterprise leads to weakened storytelling brought on by the increased need to keep going. It's like when you get a surplus or supply issue of a comic book that just isn't as good simply because a new story had to come out because the calendar date changed. 

Paul Landri: I don't have a very big following yet but I know people are looking forward to Crimson Howl 2 and 3 so I guess my particular audience likes serial-type stories. It's definitely easier to market because it's pre-established and known (even in a limited capacity)

Scott Roche: Your fans know what to expect. It's easier to market. People love series.

What are the advantages of hopping from one new, unrelated work/genre to another?

Rachel Burda Taylor: There is something fun about learning something entirely new, especially in terms of genre/world. Creatively, it gets my brain going.

Susan H. Roddey: I'm happy with a one-and-done story. I also despise a cliffhanger, which is how so many contemporary series force read-through.

Ron Thomas: Doing something in between is a mental palate cleanser. I am working on a military aviation short story between action novels. Lets me come back fresher.

Tamara Lowery: The advantage of hopping from one unrelated project to the next is the chance to reach a wider audience and to keep from getting in a writing rut or just getting lazy.

Aaron Rosenberg: For me, it’s the chance to write something different than what I’ve just finished, and also to explore something completely new. I’ve done darker (for me) books and though they were fun, I wouldn’t want to always write dark. But I feel the same way about over-the-top comedy—the DuckBob books were a blast to do, and I do like to do the occasional short story in that idiom, but I couldn’t do that kind of wackiness all the time. Switching things up lets me experiment, which I feel helps me grow as a writer. And sure, people who like my SF comedies might not care for my dark occult thrillers. On the other hand, someone might try a genre that’s new to them because they liked my work in a more familiar genre, and that’s just awesome.

Brian K Morris: For me, genre-hopping helps keep me fresh. I don't enjoy reading two similar books in a row unless it's research. But that's a me issue.

Paul Landri: It allows a break from the genre you are working in. Horror will be refreshing to me since I've been consumed with superheroes.

Bobby Nash: It keeps me from getting bored. As a reader, I read multiple genres because I like multiple genres. As a writer, I write multiple genres because I like multiple genres.

Scott Roche: I'll let you know when I find out. But seriously, for me the benefit is purely personal. I enjoy writing in different genres and I have series in different genres.

Sean Taylor: For me, it's the joy of creating what I want to create. On top of that, I get to pretend I'm a classic writer like Wells, Bradbury, or Vonnegut, who rarely even revisited characters, much less wrote a series. 

Matthew Barron: The pros are that it keeps me interested, and if a reader comes to my table there is a lot of variety. The con is a big one though. Branding and marketing are harder, and a reader who likes one of my books might come back to my table or website and not find anything similar.

For new authors, do you recommend one over the other? Why?

Lucy Blue: As for new authors, my advice on this is the same as my advice on everything else--nobody knows what's going to work in the marketplace ten minutes from now, much less two years from now or longer when you finish your book and get it published. Write the best book you can write right here and now, the one that makes your soul sing, and if it features a character or a setting or a trope that will bear repeating in a series later, awesome, but if it doesn't, that's fine, too. Wait until you have a bestseller and a publisher clamoring for a sequel to worry about it. Writing to the market has never been a good idea for novelists, but right now, it's a TERRIBLE idea.

John French: To the new authors, I would recommend creating characters you can use more than once and, as a genre hopper myself, don't limit yourself to only one genre.

Bobby Nash: Do what works best for you.

Scott Roche: No. You need to write what you enjoy. You do you.

Rachel Burda Taylor: For new authors, I'd recommend writing a stand-alone and making sure they enjoy the process and actually finish the book before worrying about more. They can always turn a stand-alone into a series. When I see new writers talking about their 12-book series, I always wince a bit. Overcommitting is a great way to really sink yourself (for me anyway.)

Susan H. Roddey: As for a recommendation on what to write -- whatever you think you have the stamina to finish. Don't be an ambitious knucklehead like me and fizzle out mid-series, because that never seems to end well.

Sean Taylor: Write what you love. If you love a character and want to tell an epic story, do it. Just know it's not for me. If you want to hop around to different MCs and different genres like a pinball, go for it. I'll probably dig at least half of it. But the important this is to write what you want to write and create the kind of stories you'd like to see more of in the world. 

Ef Deal: As for new writers, I think having a series can be an advantage to be able to offer a future to publishers.

Ron Thomas: When I was new, I wrote whatever I could for whoever would take it (academic, trade journals, non-fiction magazines, pro wrestling mags … which are “creative non-fiction” on pulp paper). However, the book series was always in planning and “under construction” in the background. I felt I needed plenty of clips to be taken seriously to pitch something book-length and beyond.

Paul Landri: I don't recommend any author doing something they don't like or won't enjoy. Writing is done for yourself first an the audience second so wrote how you want and let the chips fall where they may.

Brian K Morris: I have no preference. Write what you want to read, pure and simple. Write to chase a trend and you'll find the trend changed by the time you publish. Write your best book for you, then market to find like-minded readers.

Aaron Rosenberg: I think it really depends upon the author. If you feel in your heart and soul that you are an epic fantasy writer, focus on that to start. You can experiment and try a hard SF short story once you’re established, but first make your bones on the area you already know you love. On the other hand, if you’re not sure which genre appeals to you the most, or you have several you love, then absolutely try them all. Flexibility can be a gift—some of my work has come about when someone asked me to write something and I said, “You know, I’ve never done one of those before. Sure, let’s give it a go.”

Tamara Lowery: I recommend new writers tackle whatever they feel most comfortable with, regardless if it is a series or various stand-alones. I also think they should experiment with both long form and short form. These are very different styles requiring different skill sets. Both can help make for better writing with practice.

Movie Reviews for Writers: A Complete Unknown

There is Bob Dylan, and there is the legend or the mythology of Bob Dylan. Timothee Chalamet perfectly captures the mythology of Dylan in this awesome flick. Yes, A Complete Unknown is a biopic, but it's not really even trying to be historically accurate. Instead, and this is intentional since Dylan himself was involved in the making of the movie, this is a biography of the fictional version of Bob Dylan, the artiste, the troubadour who refused to be boxed in by the very industry he longed to become a part of. 

And to be fair, is that not the very essence of what it means to be a writer, an artist, a creator?

That said, since Dylan is far more a writer (poet, if you insist on precision) than a musician (even garnering the Nobel Prize in Literature for his poetry), it's fitting we cover what this drama has to say about our own writing. 

So, what can we learn about being a writer from this mythologizing of Saint Bob?

One caveat first -- because of the nature of Bob Dylan and the way he and his fans like to present his story, it is highly possible that some of this could be seen as a bit pretentious. But please suffer through it. Because it's not about the pretentiousness itself. It's about the truth behind the pretentiousness. 

"Kind of an Asshole"

Early in the film, Dylan and Joan Baez are hanging out after a night together, and they begin to discuss music (of course). That conversation quickly moves from when they learned to play guitar to the notion of songwriting, as Baez rummages through some of Dylan's notes scattered about his apartment. 

JOAN: I write too. But I’m not sure there’s a way to learn that.

BOB: Too hard.

JOAN: Excuse me.

BOB: You try too hard. To write.

JOAN: ...Really.

BOB: If you’re askin’.

JOAN: I wasn’t.

BOB: Sunsets and seagulls. Your songs are like an oil painting at the dentist’s office.

JOAN: You’re kind of an asshole, Bob.

I am regularly asked by fellow writers if I'd be willing to take a look at their stories for one of two reasons -- (1) to give them my overall opinion of their writing or (2) an edit of the work. I always, always, always follow that up with two questions of my own.

1. Do you really want my honest opinion or edit, because I'm striving to see you be your best as a writer?
2. What's your budget?

Disregarding the second question for the sake of this review, the first is worth looking at. Many folks only want you to validate that their view of themselves and their abilities is echoed by your view too. Even Joan Baez felt that twinge of stung pride by the honest critique by a master of the art form. (Granted, it's an unsolicited opinion, so there's that.) But supposing she had asked, his response and opinion would have been the same. And sometimes that means that friends who also write might be offended if you don't embrace their brilliance. 

"Fulfilling a Myth"

Remember that first sentence I wrote way up there? Well, it's not only true for Dylan. It's true for you too. I mean, have you read your own bio for convention copy and back cover author info? Dylan expresses this via a series of letters exchanged with another mythological performer, the man in black, Johnny Cash. 

Dear Johnny, thanks for that letter. Let me start by not beginning. Let me start not by startin'. By continuing. This whole thing has gotten hard. I am now famous. Like you. Famous by the rules of public famiousity. It snuck up on me. And pulverized me. It is hard for me to walk down the streets I did before, cause now I don’t know who is watching. Who is waiting. Wanting. I don’t mind giving an autograph, but my mind tells me it is not honest. I am fulfilling a myth. A lie. 

Remember this: You can talk all you want about the myth, but the true you will be the one that readers can learn about only by reading your work. Just like fully understanding Bob Dylan, you must take in the sum total of his decades of writing and not just pigeonhole him into any single era, you too will be seen truly over your full body of work. 

But don't forget that your readers also have the ability and sometimes intention to mythologize you. They can, based on your words, turn you from saint to devil and back again many times. For example, speaking of Dylan and how he is a major draw for the folk festivals, Harold Leventhal states, "He’s our Elvis" -- not that Dylan ever wanted to be anyone's Elvis, just his own Bob Dylan. 

Likewise, the comparisons will come for you, and while embracing them for marketing purposes can be helpful, they can also become a box in which to trap you as a creator. Become the "indie George R.R. Martin" and see how much love you get when you want to stretch your crime-writing muscles. Become known for your cozy mysteries and count on one hand the fans that follow you to your new vampire romance series.

"Where the Songs Come From"

If you've ever watched or listened to interviews with Dylan, you'll learn quickly that he and I are very different in regard to talking (or writing) about where the ideas and the words come from. I have a whole blog about that process. Dylan shrugged off such questions with vague or nonsensical responses. 

He enjoyed the act of creating but not the discussion about that act. The truth was the act itself to him. 

Not only that, he saved some of his harshest comments for those who liked to ask him about that process under the guise of jealousy or copying, as he tells Sylvie (so named in the movie although in reality her name was Suze):

..Everyone asks where the songs come from, Sylvie. But if you watch their faces, they’re not asking where the songs come from. They’re asking why the songs didn’t come to them.

Ironically, he had little place for aping another's style, even though he himself had begun as a sort of homage to Woody Guthrie. 

"Good for Somebody"

Art outs itself. Even though companies spend fortunes on marketing, art often manages to find the audience it needs. And that's a good lesson for us. It may not be a huge audience. It may not be a profitable audience that lets you live only to write, but it is an audience nonetheless. 

You may have heard the idea of writing the story only you can tell. Or writing the stories you want to see out in the world. This is the flip side of that same idea. 

Dylan agrees, as he tells the crowd before beginning a new song (an audience that sadly wants to hear another of the old songs): "Here’s a new one. Hope you think it’s good. It’s gotta be good for somebody."

And he's right. Write that story. It's gotta be good for somebody. 

"They Change Keys"

Perhaps the biggest irony between the written work of Bob Dylan and the written or spoken words of Bob Dylan is this -- he changed the world, not just the world of music, but the world of well, the world, and yet he consistently either denied or downplayed any role he might have had in those changes. Nowhere is this seen better in the film than when he attends a party and overhears folks talking about him and his music. 

PARTY GUEST 1: Read Herbert Marcuse. No song can change the world. It’s too fucked up.

PARTY GUEST 2: (looks at Bob) That’d be news to him.

PARTY GUEST 3: Hey! Bob, can songs really change things?!

BOB: They change keys.

Now, he knew his songs changed a lot more than mere keys. He knew they were changing the world. But in spite of his own acceptance of his pretension when it came to songwriting and musical poetry, he refused to accept any pretension when it came to be a driving, dominant, cultural force. 

Yet it's impossible to look back on his work and not see how much impact his poetry has had on the world. Whether it's his protest songs of the '60s, his religious upheaval in the '70s, his seeming abandonment of both in his more rock and pop '80s, or his focus on more traditional sounds in the '90s and beyond, his music has been a driving force in all of it. 

So, yeah, sure, songs changed keys, at least on the music side, but the words he wrote, they changed the world. 

"Track Some Mud on the Carpet"

My biggest takeaway from A Complete Unknown, even with all the stuff I wrote above this, is that writers will always be wanted for what they have written, not what they want to write. 

What do I mean? 

Write a successful series, and the next book your publisher wants is More of the Same Vol. 2. Write a great romance novel and the audience who loves you wants another one that gives them all the same warm fuzzies. It matters not that you feel the urge to write a hard military Science Fiction thriller or a Literary Fantasy. 

All artists learn the lesson. It's easy to get put in a box and labeled. 

While performing at the Newport Folk Festival with Joan Baez, the audience requests "Blowing in the Wind" and other popular songs they've heard a million times before. Bob wants to play something new. 

BOB (CONT’D): No, no, no. Don’t do that. They all have that on records at home.

JOAN: (to crowd) You want to hear “Blowin’ in the Wind”, right? That’s why they came here, Bob.

In a similar vein, while being talked down to by Pete Seeger (who wants him to continue in the folk hero box they've put him in), he argues that as an artist, he can't be limited to what other people want from him. 

...More in this world to sing about than justice, Pete. And there’s more than one way to play a song. (then to Albert) they just want me singing the same songs, Albert. For the rest of my fucking life.

It's a constant thorn in his side throughout his career. His folk comrades wanted to box him into protest songs with "pure" instruments. His religious comrades wanted to box him in with Bible messages only. And so on. 

Sometimes his "biggest fans" opposed him with vehemence, as when Alan Lomax derides Dylan (to Pete Seegerz) for wanting to bring electric music to the Folk Festival.

ALAN LOMAX: No, Pete. We can’t. Fuck the Butterfingers. And fuck Dylan if he thinks he’s gonna play electric on our stage. And don’t bring up ticket sales, Harold. I don’t give a shit. Rock and roll is a cash-powered alien invasion crushing all authentic human possibility.

Meanwhile, what he wanted to do was write what was inside him. It was Johnny Cash who was able to put this into words for him. 

JOHNNY CASH (V.O. via letter): I’ll see you in Newport come Spring. Till then, track mud on somebody’s carpet.

JOHNNY CASH (after the electric show) Make some noise, B-D. Track some mud on the carpet.

I think that's maybe the most important lesson we writers can learn from this film -- track some mud on the carpet of the expectations that markets, publishers, and fans have of you. 

But we're not done yet. There's still one last message this amazing film has for us as writers.

"You Brought a Shovel"

While trying to talk Dylan out of performing with an electric rock band, Pete Seeger tells him a story about folk music, about how Pete and his cronies were trying to achieve a balance between pop music and folk music and how they kept trying to fill up the folk side of the scale with teaspoons of sand. Then he says the following:

PETE: Then you came along, Bobby.. and you brought a shovel. We just had teaspoons. But you brought a shovel. And now, thanks to you, we’re almost there. You’re the closing act, Bobby, and if you could just use that shovel the right way--

BOB: The right way... 

But Dylan isn't deterred. He goes out and rocks an electric set that changes music forever. 

Afterward, he gives this message to his old friend Pete: "The only reason I have a shovel, Pete, is because I picked it up. It was just lying there and I picked it up."

You're a writer. If there's something you want to write, do it. The shovel is just lying there. Pick it up.

Nominations for the Pulp Factory Awards are now open! Please read the below for categories and instructions on how to nominate!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NOMINATIONS FOR PULP FACTORY AWARDS NOW OPEN UNTIL 2/9

Lombard, Illinois – January 4, 2025

Every year, fans gather at the Westin Hotel near Yorktown Mall in metro Chicago to celebrate the best in classic and New Pulp literature. As part of those celebrations, nominations for the Pulp Factory Awards are open. The 2025 awards will cover works published during the calendar year 2024.

The nomination process will be as follows:

● Members of the Pulp Factory Facebook group have through Sunday, February 9 to submit their initial nominations for the Pulp Factory Awards. Any work published in print in 2024 can be considered for nomination. (Digital-only books are excluded.) Reprints are not eligible for individual awards such as Best Short Story but may be included in collections if those collections feature stories published for the first time in 2024.

● Nominations (by members of the Pulp Factory only) should be e-mailed directly to PulpAwards@gmail.com, with choices in any or all of the following categories. (You may nominate as many works in each category as you wish.)

o BEST PULP NOVEL

▪ Any novel published in 2024 in print format

o BEST PULP COVER

▪ Best cover produced for a pulp novel or anthology. Any final artistic product produced by AI app/server/machine will not qualify for any PF awards.

o BEST PULP SHORT STORY

▪ Best short story published in 2024 in print format

o BEST PULP INTERIOR ILLUSTRATIONS

▪ Best interior illustrations for a novel or anthology, produced by a single artist for the book. Single illustrations or books with illustrations by multiple artists are not eligible for the awards. Any final artistic product produced by AI app/server/machine will not qualify for any PF awards.

o BEST PULP ANTHOLOGY OR COLLECTION

▪ Any anthology or collection featuring multiple stories by a single author (a collection) or stories by a variety of authors (a normal anthology). The book must have been printed in 2024 and must have contained at least one new story. In the case of a new story plus reprints, the book is eligible for Best Pulp Anthology but only the new story is eligible for the Best Pulp Short Story category.

● Members are encouraged to discuss their choices on the Pulp Factory Facebook group but note that your nominations must be e-mailed directly to PulpAwards@gmail.com to be included.

● After February 9, the committee will tally and craft a final ballot for voting (deadline to be scheduled), and that ballot will be submitted for fans to vote electronically for the awards. Awards will be handed out to winners during the Windy City Pulp and Paper Convention on Friday, April 4, 2025.

Questions and nominations should be directed to PulpAwards@gmail.com. This will ensure a more prompt response than reaching out to individual committee members.

Thank you for your interest, and looking forward to your nominations!

Motivational Monday: History Is Written...

Sunday Funnies: Two Easy Steps

[Link] What Is the Difference Between “Story” and “Plot”?

by David Young

We often say we should start at “the beginning,” which, in the words of Julie Andrews, is a very good place to start. However, it’s not necessarily true that the same kind of beginning works for every story. In fact, that remains dependent on a few factors, including where your story truly begins chronologically, as well as how your plot is structured.

Did You Just Say “Story” and “Plot” Separately?

Yes, indeed. While some consultants may call your story a “plot,” or an editor may mistake the plot for a “story,” they are distinct parts of the writing process that complement each other—hence the common misconception about their natures.

So, what are they, and why are they different? What purpose does each one serve, exactly? We can start by substituting other terms for each. Let’s learn some Russian!

In the Russian novelist boom of the 20th century came an interesting comparison between two concepts: syuzhet and fabula. Narratologists seeking to break storytelling down into clear parts defined fabula with the same meaning in Russian as it has in Latin: “story.”

Meanwhile, syuzhet was given a more nuanced meaning. The actual word roughly translates to the English word “subject,” as in the subject of an art piece or the subject of a sentence—the main focus. When thinking about syuzhet, think of that focus. You’ll begin to see why in a second.

So, What Is Fabula?

Other than simply saying the word “story” again, let’s define fabula in more concrete terms.

Scholars of Russian formalism saw it as the chronology of events as they occur—not the order in which they’re told. Greek tragedies acknowledged horrible battles before, after, and during the main scenes shown to the audience; but these were sometimes told out of order. Similarly, Inception (2010) acknowledges that there were events that led to the first heist we see at the beginning of the movie.

Whether it happens in front of the audience or not, there is an actual timeline of events that is unaffected by the way the story is told. Renfield is affected by Dracula well before Jonathan Harker heads out to the Count’s dark fortress—but we don’t see that happen. Regardless of which scene told Renfield’s part, his story is concretely part of the equation. It’s an inherent truth of the narrative.

Consider that a fable is a story with a purpose, with a message behind it; since “fable” comes from the Latin term fabula, just like the Russian word. So, when remembering fabula, think of the immovable timeline behind the narrative—the truth is the storyline.

OK… Then What Is Syuzhet?

On the other hand, syuzhet acts as the focus of the storytelling. If fabula is the truth behind a narrative, then syuzhet is the message in front of a narrative.

After all, by organizing events from a story in certain ways, you can mislead the audience or confuse the message, making a story tell a different truth. That is the power of the syuzhet, or the “subject,” of the story. That is what we call “plot,” and it’s how a movie like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) can surprise and delight an audience, despite the twist of the movie coming at the “beginning” of the timeline.

Because of how the story events are organized, you can give the audience a completely different experience from the original story—one that reveals more of the timeline and that narrative truth, making it clear what the story’s “subject” (its focus) should be. If the focus is on discovering lost memories, showing all those memories at the beginning would undermine the story.

This is why syuzhet and fabula must always work together: To have a narrative, you must have both story and plot complement each other.

Read the full article: https://thescriptlab.com/blogs/42366-what-is-the-difference-between-story-and-plot/

AIRSHIP 27 PRODUCTION PRESENTS DAN FOWLER G-MAN VOL. 4

Classic pulp G-Man, Dan Fowler returns in two brand-new action- packed adventures.

When a Denver armored money car disappears into thin air, Fowler and a local agent find themselves looking to the skies for answers. Then Dan and his colleagues find themselves on the hunt for a demented serial killer who proves clever enough to stay one step ahead of them with each new kill. 

Writer Fred Adams Jr. delivers the action nonstop with Gangland’s number one nemesis hot on their trails. Twin tales illustrated by artist Sam Salas and wrapped up with a colorful cover by Michael Youngblood.

AIRSHIP 27 PRODUCTION – PULP FICTION FOR A NEW GENERATION!!

Available now from Amazon in paperback and soon on Kindle.