Showing posts with label Corrina Lawson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Corrina Lawson. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 19, 2021

Tried and True Methods To Create and Maintain... Suspense!


For our next writer roundtable, let's talk suspense. What are your tried and true methods for creating and maintain suspense in your work? Feel free to quote examples you've written.

Bobby Nash: If my POV character is the one experiencing it, I use short, choppy sentences, disjointed or incomplete thoughts, distractions that move from one to the other. It feels frantic in that character's thoughts. I try to have the reader feel the character's anxiety.

Corrina Lawson: Ticking clock.

John L. Taylor: I use descriptive cues in their environment. One I used in a yet unpublished manuscript was to have a seemingly unmenacing character began talking to the POV character while Greig's "In the Hall of the Mountain King" is being played on a piano in the background. His tale gets more and more morbid with the music until the POV character realizes she's talking to the Angel of Death who's threatening to kill her entire city at the crescendo. It doesn't have to be that blunt, but even like a mounting noise like scratching, or a smell the protagonist is gagging on. Mix these with their rising suspicion or internal monologue and I find it builds effective tension. Also, have an event that the reader is waiting to happen, then tease it coming. In the same horror story, we read in the prologue that the POV character has snow-white hair. In chapter one, I describe her hair as naturally raven black. The reader knows something supernatural and extremely traumatic is going to happen, something that changes the protagonist's entire core nature. So I drop hints every four chapters or so until the event happens in the climax. Remember though, the more tense wind up, the bigger the payoff must be. So don't overdo it. Sometimes the moment you're building to isn't a climactic event, just a part of the journey. Place tension appropriately within the POV character's arc.

John Linwood Grant: I quite like to reflect the ‘feel’ of what is coming, to build suspense, by including aspects not immediately relevant to the expected action. So the time by the clock, in the first example below, is symbolic of something coming, as is the restlessness of a dead fox in the second. It’s about planting the idea that things are about to change, without saying it openly.

“The moon is near its first quarter, a bright crescent barely clouded now. The silver wound of it illuminates Commercial Street and the ways beyond. Almshouses and chapels, slum tenements and public houses, some showing a faint light. Mile End in the distance; breweries and rookeries around. The hands of the Christ Church clock, not so far away, stand at almost four in the morning…” (Assassin’s Coin)

“A dead fox stirs, unable to rest, its white bones gleaming in the tough grass. The owls do not call.” (Horse Road)

Bill Craig: Create a sense of urgency, as if the hero is racing against a clock.

Brian K Morris: In my writing, I like to establish that the character is moving towards something mysterious, unknowable. It's even better when I remove their support systems and any reasons to retreat from the danger.

Marian Allen: I put my characters out of their element or out of their depth and make sure the readers know it. In my mystery/comedy Bar Sinister, the "detective" is a naive busybody poking around a murder as if it's a fun puzzle. In my historical (1968) mystery A Dead Guy at the Summer House, the main character is trying desperately NOT to be told what happened before he was hired as a handyman, and doesn't even know a murder has been committed -- but other people think he knows ALL about it. I like for my characters to be -- with the readers' knowledge -- to approach danger unawares, so the reader can sit on a bus and shout aloud, "Don't go in there!" Good times.

Ian Totten: Stillness in the air coupled with distant sounds (cars on a highway, a dog barking) and an overall sense of quiet where the scene is taking place. If I can’t sense the dread and suspense in my head, it needs to be reworked until I do.

Krystal Rollins: Broderic Martin sat behind his desk, in his luxury office that overlooked a beautiful waterfall fountain. His office window would open about a quarter of the way up, just enough to hear the water splash back into the concrete pool below. He loved to listen to the water drop in sequence, people everywhere were in a cheery mood and police sirens whaled in the distance. After the sun went down was his favorite time to sit back and relax in his leather chair; the light bulbs in the pool lit up in color. It was mesmerizing, almost like a woman in a colorful silk nighty walking up to him. Anything that he wanted, she would do. The night secretary would quietly lock up his office but didn’t dare disturb his peaceful thoughts before she left for the night. He used the classic excuse to his wife that a couple of his friends from different states flew in for an all-night poker game. But instead, he used the time alone, the time to clear his mind, time to meditate, time he needed just to wind down. To see the colors of the rainbow under the water come to life, sometimes he broke down and cried. A cleansing. It was a life that most would love to have; a casino hotel that made him millions per year. A beautiful wife that looked at him all day through an eight by ten glass who wanted him home more with her and the children. He had employees by his side that would do anything he asked them to and top-notch security when he needed it. Broderic controlled a part of Las Vegas, taken over from his dad who did everything by the book. It was a different time, a dog-eat-dog world. His father made lots of friends, all Broderic did was make enemies and that’s why in his mind, everybody wanted to be around him. Ever since college, he always wanted to have fun all the time; dinner parties, expensive cars, children in private school and all the women his could desire.

Earl Carlson: Hideous and horrid, she stands over me, savoring her triumph, threatening me with finger wiggles, and salivating at the prospect of gluttonizing on my unsullied flesh. The blood of her last meal, still fresh and flowing, drips from her jowls, and her fangs gleam a ghastly white amidst the gore. I cannot help myself. I close my eyes in a vain attempt to shut her out – to make her go away. Please, Devla, make her go away. And I scream. All my terror, all my hopelessness, all my anguish coalesces as a flaming liquid in my belly, and emanates from my every orifice, my every pore, in one final, one last-ever, forever scream.

Gordon Dymowski: Bring your audience to attention, give them a clue as to what may happen....and leave them there.

Suspense is all about letting the audience come to their own conclusion before you add something that makes them want to know more. Only resolve the tension when there's no other alternative.

Hiraeth Publish: The best way is to create and develop a character who connects with the reader, and put that person in credible, yet outre jeopardy.

Jason Bullock: I like to take the reader through the scene at the beginning with a volley of description in and around all the senses a character could experience it in. The following paragraphs lead up to the climax of the scene like a roller coaster edging to the crescendo waiting for the moment of conflict to strike the Bailey so to speak.

Sean Taylor: There are several techniques I like to go to as my stand-by methods. The first is to vary the sentence length. Short sentences increase reading speed, which can also increase tension. Then hit 'em with a long, compound sentence for a sort of full stop, like hitting the pavement from a great height. 

Another is to use a repetitive phrase that draws readers back to the central idea they're supposed to be in suspense about. Nothing cheesy, but subtle enough to keep that ticking clock or pending appointment they just can't miss fresh in their minds. 

The sounds of letters and words themselves also contribute to suspense. Easy to skip letters like "s" and "z" and "m" give a reader a sense of peacefulness, all is well, you can just skip over this quickly and go with the flow. Hard sounds like "k" and "p" and "d" mess up a reader's pattern, almost guttural stops, potholes in the reading that keep a reader wanting to move faster in the text than they're able usually. 

But the best way, I've found is to keep asking myself as a writer, "What's the worst thing that could happen at this moment?" and then having the guts to put my characters in those awful situations until the story needs to start digging its way out of the hole.

Friday, September 10, 2021

Corrina Lawson's Steampunk Detectives on Audio Book -- The Curse of the Brimstone Contract and A Hanging at Lotus Hall!

Corrina Lawson is pleased to announce that audiobooks for her Amazon bestselling steampunk detective series novels, The Curse of the Brimstone Contract and A Hanging at Lotus Hall, are now available exclusively through Scribd.

The series is set in an alternate universe Victorian England where magic use was championed by the late Prince Albert, and mage coal revolutionized the technology of the time. This, unfortunately, also consolidated mage power in the hands of the upper classes, especially noble families. 

The books focus on the team of Joan Krieger, a Jewish seamstress and mage, and Gregor Sherringford, a scion of a noble house working as a consulting detective, as they solve magical mysteries that strike, in some cases, very close to home. 

The books are available widely, including at Amazon (https://amzn.to/2Wt3Mci). The audio versions are exclusive to Scribd (https://www.scribd.com/),  a subscription service with over a million paying subscribers. There is a free 30-day trial available for new customers. 

Friday, June 11, 2021

AYM GERONIMO AND THE POSTMODERN PIONEERS: TALL TALES’ NOW AVAILABLE!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

ACTION! ADVENTURE! PULP! SCIENCE FICTION! MYSTERY! HORROR! DRAMA! SPORTS! ‘AYM GERONIMO AND THE POSTMODERN PIONEERS: TALL TALES’ NOW AVAILABLE!

Pro Se Productions proudly announces that an anthology years in the making is available in print and digital formats. Originally conceived as a comic concept and appearing in the Shooting Star Comics lineup, this modern pulp hero and her team of adventurers live again in a massive collection of tales from some of today’s best writers-AYM GERONIMO AND THE POSTMODERN PIONEERS: TALL TALES!

Headquartered in the Wonder Wall, a complex carved from a side of the Grand Canyon. the PostModern Pioneers travel to all corners of the globe and undertake dangerous deeds, discover the unknown, defy disasters, and defeat the diabolical using the advanced tools of technology forged by the brilliant mind of Ms. Geronimo and the prodigious skills of her comrades.

With a Preface by Chuck Dixon and all story introductions and character biographies written by AYM Co-Creator J. Morgan Neal, these modern-day tall tales are told by Sean Burnham, Rebecca Upson, Diane Colchamiro, Neil Sarver, Scott E. Hileman, Cliff Roberts, Sarah Beach, Corrina Lawson, Brenda Roberts, Danny Donovan, John David Bock, Bobby Nash, Sean Taylor, Scott McCullar, Tommy Hancock, and Eric Burnham.

AYM GERONIMO AND THE POSTMODERN PIONEERS: TALL TALES-Available from Pro Se Productions!

Featuring a stunning cover by Co-Creator Todd Fox and cover design and print formatting by Sean Ali, TALL TALES is available in print at https://tinyurl.com/3xh8568f for $15.99.

This pulpy anthology is also available on Kindle formatted by Antonino lo Iacono and Marzia Marina for $2.99 athttps://tinyurl.com/3s9srbf2. Kindle Unlimited Members can read these PostModern Pioneering adventures for free!

For more information on this title, interviews with the creators and authors, or digital copies for review, email editorinchief@prose-press.com.

To learn more about Pro Se Productions, go to www.prose-press.com. Like Pro Se on Facebook at www.facebook.com/ProSeProductions.

Tuesday, April 6, 2021

Romancing the Genre (With Apologies to the Stone)


This week, we're going to look at working romance into your other genres. What is the appeal of having romantic subplots in stories that are more typically focused on action, adventure, or even horror? We turned to the jury to get their verdict. 

Have you found a romantic subplot in your action and adventure (whatever genre you're actioning in) stories to be a helpful extra layer or not? Why?

Corrina Lawson: To be specific on questions, my own work straddles the line between romance and other genres. It's a terrific layer because it should (ideally) key into the growth of the character. A character has to undergo a sort of transformation to their best self in the story--and sometimes it's only the romantic interest who can see through the chaff to that best self. (Witness, say, Romancing the Stone, where Kathleen Turner basically forces Michael Douglas to take a hard look at who he wants to be.) 

Selah Janel: I haven’t written a lot of romance, but I’ve done a few things and a lot of what I write has romantic subplots. For me, I really like exploring relationships and interactions between characters. I really like playing with circumstance and tension, and getting under the surface to explore how characters relate and grow together. 

HC Playa: I write adventures with sex and love because I cannot for the life of me write actual romance.

Lucy Blue: Why do I write romance? Because I think human connection is the most interesting, most valuable reward any protagonist can achieve. It’s what we fight for. It’s what we survive for. And we can portray that by putting in a generic hot chick or dude to fridge and forget while we get on with the kung fu fighting. Or we can be brave and let that relationship be real. In movies, that works all the time. But in books, a real relationship equals romance, and romance equals Hallmark. And yeah, that makes me tired.

Emily Leverett: I've got a romantic subplot in my Eisteddfod Chronicles. The two MC have an affair. It's as much about the political implications as the personal, and both will continue to matter as the story comes to a close. Sometimes (all the time?) it's not possible to separate the personal and political. 

Sean Taylor: I almost always have a romantic element in my stories. I think it makes a fantastic B-plot or even C-plot depending on the length of the work, and it allows me to showcase more characteristics of my characters rather than just their ability to punch or exorcise horrors. 

David Wright: I tend to let the characters decide.

Mike Hintze: I go with the flow. The story tells me what happens

What is the appeal to readers to find a romantic story squirreled away inside other genres?

Lucy Blue: I have never written about rose petals in my life. I write action-packed, gory, hard-edged horror and fantasy stories with real conflict and peril that just happen to have a romantic relationship at their center. But as soon as I say I write romance, other horror and fantasy writers think rose petals and emotional melodrama. (This is me not talking about it.

Sean Taylor: As a reader myself, I always love to find them, as long as they don't overpower the A-plot. But they can get as close as they want to without bothering me. I look to the greats like Rebecca or even Haunting at Hill House. Without the romantic subplots, even those stories (one to a great degree obviously) would have been far more "one note" stories.

Emily Leverett: A romance can make a good backdrop for those explorations, because little is more personal than who you're having sex with.

Selah Janel: I think people tend to simplify what romance is and why people read it. I think it’s another way of seeking catharsis and when a person sees themselves or their personality reflected in a character, it gives hope that things can work out for them and they’re worthy of love, too. There’s a whole gamut of situations and emotions to explore - is a feeling required, unrequited, is there loss involved or baggage that might be an obstacle, how they see themselves and others - just all sorts of things that factor into how people relate to each other. It makes that moment when two characters do connect or reconnect that much more interesting and sweeter.

Corrina Lawson: The appeal to readers is more insight into characters, I would guess. Less so than in novels, but in movies, the romance part often seems tackled on because the love interest is only there to be rescued or in peril. *Even today.* I think romance gets a bad rep because of those types of movies. Most of the time, the movies would be better without them because they're not central to the character's story.

Or do you feel that romantic subplots just get in the way of your main plots?

Mark Holmes: I love a good romantic subplot! The problem is in 8 to 10 pages of a comic script I usually don't have any space to tell one other than a quick smooch at the end of the story.

Nik Stanosheck: The romance can be a way to get to know the characters and to help them grow and develop more.

Corrina Lawson: Romance is a type of relationship. I find authors who write relationships well tend to also write romance well, and it adds character and depth to a story. I should clarify, that in the genres I write, characters try to find their best selves. Obviously not true of other genres where tragic endings are fine. But romances there can also underscore character faults and bad choices.

Sean Taylor: At least the way I try to write them, they add to the main story rather than getting in the way, at least I sure hope so. That's the plan when I start to write anyway. 

Tuesday, March 9, 2021

Questions from a Brave and Stupid Man to a Panel of Women Writers #3: Men (Mis)Writing Women

NOTE: This post features adult language.

Being a white man, I willingly acknowledge I have blind spots, things that while they don't register to me like they perhaps should are things well worth my time and thought and important for me to know and understand in order to a member of a community of diverse writers.

That said, I've assembled an all-female panel of writers to be my teachers.

This is #3 in a series of articles. The first can be found here, and the second here

Today's discussion is this: 

Are there things you find often when men write female leads that drive you crazy? What are they, and how can male writers fix those issues?

       

Emily Leverett

(Most) Women ALWAYS (always, I mean always, no matter what) take serious inventory of their current location--that is, where are the exits? Is this well lit? Are there people around? How fast do I need to walk somewhere, etc. In bars, on the street, anywhere. Women often refuse to stay in motels where the doors open to the outside. Also, as per the Men Write Women Twitter account, women's breasts do not have a mind, emotional set, or physical capacity to move of their own.

And I don't randomly think about my boobs AT ALL unless they are either hurting or as I am dressing and even then only in passing. I don't dwell upon my long soft hair as I twist it up and clip it.

I am thinking "Is today a two cups of coffee day or am I good with one?"

We do frequently have a laundry list of things in our head, planning out day, mental notes for errands, checklist of things done to leave house. (Of course the fewer responsibilities one has the shorter that list)

Women are just as likely as men to be logical and pragmatic, or emotional and impulsive.

Corrina Lawson

They don't write a specific personality. When some male writers create men, they create a specific person, yes? When they create a woman, they create the same type over and over. (See Greg Rucka, frex.) Women are as varied as men, they have all kinds of different interests, body types, and personalities.

Also, women approach a date/encounter with unknown men with the same wary attitude that men approach a possible fistfight. 

I wanted to add even when they write well-drawn and complicated women, men tend to make them also fuckable. Not every woman in your story needs to be fuckable. Put older women in. Make them interesting too.

Ellie Raine

I’ve noticed men writing “strong female characters” as if they have zero flaws and are just amazingly awesome at literally everything without any struggle whatsoever as if they’re robots...

Sometimes they even come off as male character personalities but in a skin that men want to see, so it’s still men writing for men.

Just as often, though, I also see men writing only about an OPPRESSED WOMAN archetype who doesn’t have any actual personality other than being oppressed and being angry about it 24/7 in their sleep, in the shower, on the toilet, in the car, in the morning, etc. Literally, it’s like some authors think they’re not even allowed to give those characters a favorite color or a favorite beverage, because someone must have told them they’re not allowed to write about women unless their entire being and existence is only relevant to how much they’re oppressed... like, for sure, we HAVE and STILL ARE oppressed on too many god damn levels, and while I get angry about that bs a lot when it comes up, I’m still a damn human who thinks and does other things ASIDE from that.

Our purpose in life is not BEING OPPRESSED. Our personalities are not BEING OPPRESSED. Our goals are not BEING OPPRESSED.

Oppression is a viable and accurate OBSTACLE. I personally don’t want it to define who I am as a human being. I decide for myself who I am, as should all characters regardless of gender, sexuality, race, and belief. They. Are. PEOPLE.

        

Ruth de Jauregui

Women are complicated. 

A tough woman working in a man's world can also be caring and sensitive, but she might keep it out of sight of the world. Give us those little moments where we can see that she cares, that a memory is painful. Oh, and we have aches and pains -- it's not all sweetness and light...

Oh, and real women don't have breasts shaped like melons -- especially after kids. Hips spread, knees and back hurt, no more high heels.

Anna Rose

Women being one-note characters constantly in need of “saving”.

Fuck that shit.

My characters of all genders tend far more to fighting back than being passive.

Cynthia Ward

Women should have agency (so avoid female characters who are absolutely, utterly, totally helpless in body, mind, spirit, and imagination. As you would with male characters).

Skip making them damsels in distress. This doesn't mean they cannot need or receive help from a man (or a woman, or a group). What it means is that helplessness and victimhood are not their story function, any more than they are a male character's story function.

(It may be worth noting that Edgar Rice Burroughs, who died in 1950, rarely created females who were damsels in distress. Arguably, he didn't at all, because Jane gained a lot of competence and independence in later books.)

Don't have the women be there for the male lead, or for male characters in general. This is rather subtle and difficult to root out, I suspect. But it's a big part of the reason why I've joked that most fiction is fan-service for men. In the Travis McGee books I've read, excellent as they are, this is definitely the role of women. However much I like them, the women are there to have sex with McGee, comfort him, give him an excuse to demonstrate competence in and/or out of bed, etc.

Along these lines, do you only have one female character in the story or novel? It can make sense in some cases (she's the only character or there are only two characters, or you are recognizing multiple genders in a small cast). But it can often be avoided.

Remember not all women and girls are cisgender.

As a cis woman, I'll note that I don't pay nearly as much attention to my breasts, genitals, or (when I had them) periods as some male writers think.

Cis women also tend not to think about penii nearly as much as many cis men think.

       

Lucy Blue

I’m also very very tired of female characters who prove their worth as action heroes by hating all things stereotypically feminine, whether it’s dating men or nail polish. If I have to read how one more female protagonist has no time to wear makeup or doesn’t realize how beautiful she is or never bothers with a bra for her perky double D boobs (pro tip—double D boobs can be many things but perky ain’t one of them without the assistance of engineering), I’m going to vomit. And why can’t she be susceptible to flirting or romantic commitment without being perceived as weak or silly?

Nikki Nelson-Hicks

Off the top of my head, the thing that always makes me most angry is when a female character is merely there to prop up the male character. She's there to be pretty, to make him feel better, to show him the meaning of life. The Manic Pixie Dream Girl trope is the first thing that comes to mind. (The Bechdel Test also comes to mind. I often use it when I'm watching a movie. BTW, Hamilton completely fails the Bechdel test.) I mean, look at the first Star Wars movie, New Hope. We're supposed to feel so sorry for Luke losing Ben Kenobi, a man he's known for a few days, when Leia has not only endured torture by Empire needle bots, she's lost her entire planet! And who gets comforted? Yeah. That's pretty messed up. If you want to make a character interesting, worry about their humanity. Their goals. Their ambitions. My genitalia has very little to do with my ambitions or personal goals. I like a character that could be gender swapped and not a bit of the character's motivations be lost.

Alexandra Christian

Men often have a tendency to be obsessed with describing women strictly in terms of their physical appearance. I proofed a book where the guy referenced a woman's "shapely legs" 4 times on one page. There also seem to be two kinds of women: sex pots that every man on Earth wants to sleep with or a heinously unattractive bitch.

    

Krystal Rollins

Women writers treat their manuscript like their best friend. She can put it down for a while, come right back to it, and pick up her conversation just where she left off.

Sarah Lucy Beach

I was recently editing something and the female main character was described in one sentence as a "big chunk of a woman." I thought "chunk" a bit heavy handed, but it could mean tall, strong, Junoesque. But then a couple of sentences later, she is also described as "beautiful and sexy," with no other description to it. The other character in the scene is an older woman, a counselor. So the "beautiful and sexy" was totally irrelevant. Sexy to whom? How? Why does it matter if she's sexy or not, especially in such a scene.

Just calling a woman "sexy" doesn't make her so. It's laziness on the part of the male writer. Dude, if you cannot describe why she's turning you on, just drop it. She ain't sexy. But if it's the way her lips turn up, or the long slender column of her neck, or her graceful hands fluttering about, lightly caressing the surface of the table.... Anyway, SHOW us in her behavior (movement, voice, that sort of thing) what makes her attractive, don't just flat out TELL the reader, because that is FLAT.

Mandi M. Lynch

If you want a good female character, think about what makes a good male character. When we hear about male characters we hear about professional accomplishments, we hear about what they do and who they are, we don't hear about sexy rugged shoulders and the bulge in their pants. When a male character achieve something it isn't because he's blond and skinny and pretty with an upturned nose, it's because of how he got there. We don't hear about how their clothes pulled tight in certain spots. And we don't hear about them and association with other people unless there is an important reason for that.

Also, in general I am tired of hearing about strong assertive females being b***** or ugly or sturdy or whatever stupid word you have for the day. There's a strong woman in power somewhere, and she's either a nice princess or screwed her way to the top, or we get a woman that basically is manly and just can't accept her position in life. And that's not how it really is.

 

Susan H. Roddey

My biggest hang-up is when more stock is put on the woman's physical appearance than her abilities. I don't like seeing women treated as hypersexualized eye-candy. She needs to have better motivation than some dude's ass-kicking warrior chick fantasy.

I completely understand that if a male character is seeing the woman for the first time then yeah, he'll likely take stock of her physical appearance and that's fine. Just don't overdo it. Let him appreciate what he sees and move on before it becomes comical and offensive. We don't need to know exactly how the fabric of her dress hangs off her hips or what the outline of her nipples looks like through her top.

Amanda Niehaus-Hard

All of the above and be aware too that women are angry and we live with that anger 24/7.

Women have certain societal expectations put on them to be the care-takers or "mothers." Women are expected to be the peace-makers. Women are expected to respond passively to the violence in the world and in their communities. This weighs on you and affects you from childhood into adulthood. And it's infuriating.

Be aware that your character has a back story of fury over these expectations, over being dismissed, ignored, mansplained, not believed, etc. Be aware that her back story also includes anxiety over being raised to believe she was "asking for" any violence done to her by wearing the wrong clothes or not being vigilant enough in a parking garage. Be aware that she has been sexualized since she was a child, and that her current "worth" in society is based on how closely she still resembles a teenager -- so her confidence in her own sexuality and her own self-worth is constantly under attack by her anxieties.

Be aware that we are intimately acquainted with microaggressions because we've been told since preschool that we need to shrug them off.

Be aware that sometimes our own religious faith fails us, neglecting to protect us or failing to give us support in times of crisis.

Be aware of our history in our culture. We know what year we were finally allowed to have bank accounts without a husband co-owning the account. Do you?

Be aware that we can't ask for help without being called weak, or having that request used against us, as a symptom of our "hysteria."

No matter what your position on birth control, sterilization, or abortion, be aware that we STILL don't have agency over our own health and our own contraception -- and what little control we have is constantly under threat.

My point is not that men don't live with anger or unrealistic societal expectations. Of course they do. But you're aware of yours. Be aware of ours.

Want to write a woman as a villain? She doesn't need to have been raped. She doesn't need to have had her child murdered. She doesn't need to have Stockholm Syndrome. She really just needs to be a woman.

Jen Mulvihill

Oh, my, where to begin, there are so many but let's just talk about the simplest one. Woman do not always sit around and gossip about each other or ogle good looking guys and make sexist remarks about them. We actually do have intelligent and in depth conversations about life, the universe, and everything. I would recommend that you sit and listen to women's conversations before assuming what we talk about and what we care about. Also, also, not all women/girls run screaming when they see something scary or are attacked. Personally my first instinct is to find a weapon, and always double tap, don't hit them once and think they are out cold or dead. A smart woman always makes sure. I find it inspiring to talk to people and ask questions about their gender or even their race or religion. Most people are not offended by this because they rather see a writer get it right then get upset about it being wrong. I think readers appreciate it when you take the time to do proper research especially when it comes to characters written by the opposite sex.

Thursday, March 26, 2015

When the Sh*t Hits the Fan: Ramping Up Toward the Conclusion

We've thrown soft lobs for the past few weeks for the roundtables, so it's high time we get back into some practical, useful advice for writers from our shared experience.

Obviously, there will be some difference between writers, and between writing styles (pantsers vs. plotters, etc.), but the end result is the same -- there comes a time in your story when it's time to shift into the higher gears and work some emotion and action and intensity toward your conclusion.


When you're either writing as a pantser or plotting as a plotter, how do you know when that moment has come, when it's time to ramp up the story and begin that third act in earnest?

Jim D. Gillentine: I'm a pantster. So I guess I'll start. I try to do a slow build up from about the middle of the story. I make it more and more intense by each chapter. My editor told me I achieved this with my latest book, Crossroads, the sequel to The Beast Within. As each chapter played out, she told me she was getting more and more drawn into the story. Feeling anger at what was happening to my two main characters that had been captured by the big bads in my little tale. Until, BOOM! They fought back to regain their freedom. She said it was a perfect build up of tension that reached a point where as reader she cheered when the shit started to go down.

I.A. Watson: That point comes when all the pieces are on the board and now its time to crash them all together. It's very rare that there's a "new element" in the third act. It all has to have been Chekhov Gunned by them. When all the dominoes are finally in a row -- push!

Frank Fradella: I think almost strictly in terms of character, tension and event. Your main character should have a desire, a motivation. They want something. That's obvious, right? Your story arises when someone or something has a conflicting motivation, preventing your character from getting what they want. If you look at the second character exactly the same way you would your main character — that is to say, not a prop who exists solely to provide an obstacle to your hero, but the hero of their own story — then you drive them forward toward their goal with the same zeal you do your protagonist. There's your tension. There's your conflict. Introduce events to bring them together, drive them apart, up the stakes, but the driving force should always be the conflict between these two uncompromising drives.

My favorite example from comics is Magneto and Professor Xavier. Magneto is a compelling character in his own right. He's not a cardboard stand-up waiting for some random X-man to knock him down. He's a purpose-driven protagonist in his own story, dedicated to the preservation of his people by any means necessary. Then some bald idiot in a wheelchair wants to get everyone in a group hug and sing kumbaya. Jerk.

Selah Janel: I fall in between the two categories -- I have very specific moments I want to hit, but I also leave a lot of room for characters to develop and guide the plot, as well. For me, that moment where things really turn a corner and bear down is always a pretty natural escalation. I usually know that's the moment I'm building toward, and make it a point to guide the plot and energy to it. Now, I may go back after the first draft and hone things to make it more of a specific build, but I usually have at least one moment that things are being guided to.

Ric Martens: For me its kind of an organic thing... when the story is at a point it can't handle the pressure.. then I know its time to ramp up the end.

Corrina Lawson: I usually know that moment when I start and write to it. If I don't or have an inexact idea, I write down several, discard what I've done or seen done before and instead pick the more original idea.

Walter Bosley: It's time to ramp up and begin the third act when I've finished the second act. I don't mean to be flippant, but even though I know what my ending will be, I pretty much go with the intuition and appropriate degree of faith in format and structure as to when I've reached the end of the second act. For me, in my stuff, it's clear when I've reached that point and then I simply ramp it up because I'm "officially" in the third act.

Stephanie Osborn: Well, to be honest, since I don't write sequentially anyhow, it's not unusual for the climax to be one of, if not THE, first thing I write. Usually what winds up happening for me is that I have all the major plot points written, and then it becomes a matter of connecting the dots. Rarely I will realize that the climax is going to be so intense that I will put off writing it until the end -- usually the VERY end.

Bill Craig: My stuff is all very character driven and as the tension begins to built toward the home stretch things start to happen and the clock starts to tick for them and they find things moving fast around them and their reactions ramp it up even more.

It is all about the character's reactions. Sometimes they know it is SHTF time before I do. How they react and talk pushes the action forward.

What, if anything, changes about the way you either write (technique) or approach writing (such as workspace, music, etc.) when you ramp up the intensity?

Stephanie Osborn: I will procrastinate for a few days. This is actually necessary, as I am gathering up the energy to write the thing. (I find that it takes a LOT of energy to create a story. My writing mentor, Travis Taylor, likens it to running a mental marathon. When I finally finish a manuscript, I plan to take a few days off to recover, just like you would an athletic competition.)

Then I get everything organized that I might need while I am writing: full water bottle, tissues, good snacks, the phone, whatever. And I position them in easy reach. Depending on my mood and the scene, and how available it is, I may turn on some soft instrumental music to help me "flow."

Then I will read over the material leading up to, and do any editing I feel is needed, whether copy edits, or reworking parts of the material.

This allows me to simply continue writing at the end of the lead-in material. I will then usually write straight through until it's done, however long it takes, because if I stop I may lose the momentum.

Once it's done, I save it down, shut down the computer, and do something completely different to relax and unwind.

I.A. Watson: I try to write the first draft finale in one go, however long it takes. That way I can use the urgency in my imagination on the page too. Also there is caffeine.

Bill Craig: Sometimes I have to step back and take a breath because I am every bit as involved as they are, but I still can't shake the tension.

Walter Bosley: More coffee. And a desire to see the work finished. But the way I work does not change otherwise.

Selah Janel: Technique wise, once the intensity is ramped up, I know I'm going to be hunkered down devoting whatever time is necessary until that bit is finished. For me it's the equivalent of a roller coaster - the worst thing is to have to stop midway through, so I usually ignore everything else until those moments are written and tend to be totally oblivious to everything else. I also either get insanely critical of myself trying to get certain bits right or I'm so deep in the moment that I can let all that go until that section is written - it's usually one extreme or the other.

Frank Fradella: I don't generally outline when I'm writing novels, but I do know the major beats of my story, and I know what the "final battle" between these two forces is; where it happens, why, and how. Nearly all of the pages prior to this are me driving to this destination. That may sound single-minded, and it is. Other authors have their subplots and B-stories and pages of exposition about the shrubbery or curtains. I'm just not that guy. I tend to strip away anything that isn't my reason for telling the story in the first place.

Ric Martens: I tend to get uber focused at this point, not sure I change anything, more just get lost in the world.

Corrina Lawson: I have the opposite problem -- I have to work more on quiet scenes.

What is the difference between ramping up the action, ramping up the emotion, and ramping up the intensity of the story? Or is there no difference?

Selah Janel: I think both an increase of action and increase of emotional tension contribute to the intensity and forward-momentum of the story. You have to raise the stakes, and that will make the characters react in equally amped up ways (hopefully). I love playing with emotional intensity with my characters, probably more than writing action, but a lot of times (especially in genre fiction), that visual element is so important. Still, for me personally, how characters react and how those experiences either build or break them is always the most fascinating and visceral part. I know if I'm on target or not as soon as I write their reactions, and that can either really propel a sequence along or derail me into reworking other parts of the build up. The action may propel the visual and "plot" elements, but the emotion is going to help a reader connect with a character and ramp up the visceral connections. Plus, it all has to be its own complete journey. As a reader, I want a book to feel like listening to a complete song, or going on a theme park ride - you want that full experience, and you want it to feel like a constant build of energy -- a crescendo and decrescendo of sorts. Whether that's action or emotion based really depends on the type of story, but you need that momentum and resolution for the story to feel like a complete unit.

Bill Craig: The ramping up comes on all levels, but it comes in different ways, but it all comes from the characters. for example in this excerpt from my forthcoming Caribe spy novel this new character is introduced but the tension builds quickly as he knows something is about to happen but he doesn't know what.

Erin Banacek looked up when he heard the sound of helicopters. The Ares Oil man frowned. While they had excavated a lot of jungle on the site, he had gotten no word of equipment arriving. From the sound of the rotor blades, these were the heavier Sikorsky choppers that carried heavy machinery and equipment. “Bloody Hell!” he snarled as he stood and headed outside into the compound. “Davies, what the hell is going on?”

“No clue Sir. Who are these guys?”

“I wish I knew.”

“Get security armed and ready. I don’t like the smell of this.”

“Right Boss!”

Banacek headed back into his tent. He wanted his gun handy when he met the choppers. He grabbed his satellite phone too. He wondered if he should call Ms. Connelly about this, then decided that could wait. If this was something she had put in motion, it wouldn’t due to question it. Better to wait and see what was going down and then complain about it later. He put the sat phone in one of the cargo pockets of his pants as he buckled on the pistol belt that held his Colt Government Model 1911-A1 and six spare magazines. He pulled up the flap and drew the pistol, racking back the slide to chamber a round. He stuck it back in the holster and stepped outside, leaving the flap unsecured.

The scene is set and you get an immediate sense of tension and danger.

Walter Bosley: I'd have to analyze that a bit more. I guess I simply have more 'action' and am less verbose in description. My protagonists get less patient with BS, my victims get more desperate, and the villains do more nasty things, I suppose.

I.A. Watson: Ramping up the action often requires heightened stakes, greater urgency, and sometimes a big set-piece event (or countdown to one). That calls for very clear descriptive storytelling, cause and effect stuff. Often it needs short, sharp sentences. For effect.

Ramping up emotion requires revelation, reaction, and usually at least one powerful point of view. Letting the characters loose to say their pieces involves as much plotting and set-up as a big action finale, but the techniques differ. Longer, more elaborate sentences offering insight to inner thoughts and feelings allow for a better reader journey through the characters' torments.

Ramping up intensity is all about how desperate the reader needs to be to turn the page. Either action or emotion can achieve that, as can horror or mystery or wonder or other visceral devices. The key to intensity is pace, and gradually magnifying it. That may mean the pace quickens, as in action scenes, or that each story beat hits harder and heavier, punch after punch. And often, when the spring is wound so tight that its about to snap, there's a roller-roaster release that pays off after.

Ric Martens: There is no difference for me.

Corrina Lawson: They're all entwined. If no emotions are invested, why would we care about a fight? However, I usually try to make the climax big, bigger than any previous action. All at stake, larger action-lime the end of Winter Soldier when everything is in play.

Stephanie Osborn: There are differences, but they are subtle. Usually ramping up action ramps up the other two to some degree. Ramping up emotion tends to ramp up story intensity. Given I write science fiction mysteries for the most part, often the emotion has already ramped up, and the action taken for the climax is like a dam breaking -- it releases the emotion and things run rampant. (At least if I've done it right.)

Do you find that your involvement with the story grows more tense or more relaxed when you're in that "home stretch" of the tale? Why?

Ric Martens: I get way more tense and focused.. I think because I know I am nearing the end and its kind of intense and scary all at once.

Corrina Lawson: More intense. Because if it doesn't work, the whole story falls apart. Plus, I like writing endings whereas middles aren't so fun.

Stephanie Osborn: More tense, much more tense. Because I'm feeling what my protagonists are feeling, and I always have to be a few steps ahead, if not already at the resolution, even if my protag is Sherlock Holmes. Which is really hard to do. Takes a lot of effort. And 99% of the time I am completely caught up in the events. If my husband were to walk up to me without warning me of his presence, he'd have to peel me off the ceiling fan blades, because I'm not "here," I'm "there."

Jim D. Gillentine: As a writer, that is my main goal when I write. I want my readers to be feeling the pain and anger my characters are going through, and if I achieve that going by the seat of my pants, then I did my job to entertain you.

Frank Fradella: As far as tension goes? I think that ramps up naturally, if you're dealing with character first. Most people don't jump to a nuclear option right away. They try the easiest path to their goal first, and only escalate their efforts when they find that blocked.

Walter Bosley: I have to keep myself in check that I maintain whatever "quality" I've metered out through the story to that point, rather than rush through it and crank out a weak third act. I suppose then I must relax as I write it regardless how intense the story gets. I don't see my action as the strength in my stuff. My strengths are the attitudes and dialogue and where I'm willing to go with subject matter.

I.A. Watson: It depends on the kind of story. I generally prefer to get my explanations and motivations clear before the climax, so readers know the stakes and understand the issues (with all due respect to Dumbledore's 25-page justifications and footnotes in the infirmary after each time Harry has saved the day). Making sure that every point is clear and that each character gets a pay-off is quite a cerebral task and can be the hardest part of the writing. But then sometimes there's a wonderful sleigh-ride back to base, where all the hard work getting there just makes the last stretch a joy.

Selah Janel: It depends -- I either want to get everything right or I completely surrender to the story. It really depends on what it is and what my state of mind is at the current moment. I usually want to just let it pour out of me, and that's when I feel I'm at my best, when I can just be a conduit for all the action and emotion and let it happen, leaving the polishing and fine details for later. Even if I re-work that section, I usually have some of my best dialogue or emotional moments come from that initial outpouring. There's something to be said for letting yourself get immersed and letting the story work through you. At the end of the day, if you've done your homework and if your characters are well developed enough, the story knows what it's doing. 

Thursday, October 9, 2014

Art vs. Money: Writers Sound Off

It's time once again for the weekly roundtable discussion for the blog. Up this week: Writing for art vs. writing to sell. Art vs. Commerce. Creativity for creation's sake or creativity for the sake of making a living wage.

Have both sides been incited enough yet by that lead-in? Good. Let the discussion commence.


Is there a difference between writing for art and writing to sell? What is it (or what are they)?

Richard Lee Byers: I supposed that writing purely for art would mean that the writer was creating purely for his own enjoyment or to express a personal vision and was sublimely indifferent to the possibility of making any money off his work. Whereas writing purely to sell would mean that the writer only cared about money and was indifferent to self-expression and the possibility of creating something of real quality or lasting value.

Fan fiction writers and certain bloggers may represent that first hypothetical type of writer. But I have seldom if ever met a professional or aspiring professional fiction writer who could be fairly characterized as a pure example of the second. Even if we care a lot about the commercial potential of our work, we still take pride in our craftsmanship, and we still tell stories that interest us and allow us to on some level express things that matter to us. If we weren’t going to do that, we probably wouldn’t have gone into the profession in the first place.

Terri Smiles: I consider books written with the primary purpose of making money to contain less commentary on society or what it is to be human. That is not to say that books that include such "deeper" themes can't become commercial successes, but rather that the author had points to make or at least questions for the readers to think about, in addition to a romping story.

Marian Allan: There isn't NECESSARILY a difference. Shakespeare wrote for the market, after all. Writing for art is putting your heart and mind into it; writing to sell is hoping for the best.

Frank Fradella: There are, in my mind, three stages in being a writer. There's the hobbyist, who likes to write, who gets pleasing feedback from friends and family and who's entire "career" may never progress past Live Journal and an entry in a Poetry.com anthology. These are people who often say, "You know, I had an idea for a novel..." and never actually write it. If you are very, very lucky, this is the stage where Harlan Ellison slaps you across the face and tells you to go be a plumber instead AND YOU GO BE A PLUMBER INSTEAD.

Past that, there's the craft. This is where the words come out of you intentionally, with deliberation. Where the countless hours spent reading better writers is starting to rub off on you and you realize there's an honest-to-goodness craft at work here; that nothing happens by accident. This is the stage where you study and understand structure and character and motivation and develop your own style. You write, and you write a lot. Not all of it is very good. Much of it stinks. You greet the praise of friends and family with skepticism. It's nice, but you'd rather get that reaction from a respected peer.

Finally, the craft turns a corner and becomes a profession. You write stories that matter to you, but you write them in such a way that resonate with other people. You learn how to pitch and write queries and you get paying work that puts food on the table and gas in the tank. You now spend more time marketing your work than you do writing it. (This, in my mind, is where we separate the talented amateur from the true professional.)

Iscah: You may be a little more free to experiment with writing for arts sake and writing for sales sake. But writing to sell is also writing to communicate, to share a story, and there's a high degree of art to doing that well. Being intelligible doesn't make you less of an artist. You don't have to push the boundaries of them medium to write a good book, though there are certainly times you can do both.

Percival Constantine: I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. If you write a book or a story, why wouldn't you want to be compensated for your hard work? The way I would differentiate it is forcing yourself to write in a genre you don't like just because it's popular. As an example, I'm not a fan of erotica, so if I wrote in erotica just to make a quick buck, I think that would be a betrayal of the art side of things.

Corrina Lawson: In the initial stages, no, because the only guarantee you have when you write is to amuse/enjoy yourself. After a draft, it may needed to be tweaked or altered a bit for the market.

Lance Stahlberg: I confess I'm having trouble understanding the question. How can there be a distinction? So I guess the answer is "No." Not in my mind.

"Writing for Art" without any desire to sell is still writing.

"Writing to sell" cannot be done without also paying attention to the art or the craft. If you don't legitimately enjoy what you are writing, if you don't take care to enough to craft a well told story or put your own artistic voice into the work, you will not engage readers, and thus won't sell.

Even when you look at the most infamous example of godawful writing that sold a gazillion copies and got a movie deal in the mommy porn market, that started as &q uot;art" in the writer's mind. By all accounts, it was written as fanfiction, purely for enjoyment. It was the publisher who made it into a blockbuster through crazy marketing tactics. Trying to replicate that with the intent of becoming a commercial success is a stupid way to try to hit the lottery.

Lee Houston Jr.: Your questions are certainly intriguing, but I honestly don't know if I can answer them individually. So just give me a moment to hop up on my soap box and I'll tell you how I feel about writing. I write because I love to create. I have been an avid reader as far back as I can remember, and that (in part) has inspired me to tell my own tales.

Whether or not I'm successful is hard to say. People do read my work and (hopefully) want more.

I'm certainly not getting rich writing, and if that was my only goal, I may have given up a long time ago. I do want to reach a point where I can financially support myself writing, but I'm referring more to maintaining the basics of life like keeping a roof over my head and the bills paid than any desire for exotic vacations or a fancy house. Yet when it comes to writing, I'm doing what I love and love what I'm doing. So from that perspective, then I am definitely successful.

Jack Wallen: I think there is – very much. Why? Those that write to sell write what sells and that can become very calculated. Those that write for art, write to honor the craft and the word. That is not to say one cannot write what sells while still honoring your art, but most often writing to sell can quickly lead to selling out your art. It’s the same thing we see in the music industry (over and over again). Band write music that comes from their soul until they get a taste of success. At that point the temptation is very great to write for the audience with the most influence over the industry. How many times do you hear an author say something like “I could write romance, but...”. We do that because we know romance sells. I don’t do that because I don’t want to take time away from what I love – horror.

Why do writers tend to divide into camps and support one over the other? Aren't both needed?

Terri Smiles: I don't know why writer's divide themselves. I want people to read. ALL readers are good readers, no matter what their preference - and they writers to produce what they want to read.

Marian Allan: People are bilaterally symmetrical, aren't we? We love to divide things into this or that, these or those, yin and yang. So writers divide into pantsers and plotters, literary and commercial, artists and craftsmen. With writing, what you do and how you do it is actually somewhere on a continuum, and you might shift position depending on the project. Why do we choose up sides? Because it gives us something to argue about over beer.

Shelby Vick: Part of the problem here is, I feel, deciding the difference between writing for art and writing for money. The latter, I feel, is a goal most writers appreciate; who doesn't like money?  But the former suggests that 'creating' and 'style' would be the main objective. Or is that a description of the art of writing? Whatever it may be, I feel most writers write because they have the drive to do so. I have written since I learned to put a pencil to paper and form words. Many of the writers I know are the same, and have a compulsion to write. Some train that compulsion so they can actually sell what they write.

Jack Wallen: I think this is simple – writers that write to sell have decided it’s the only way to see their “brand” as a business. I am a full-time, stay at home writer. I do not treat this as a business. This is an art that happens to make me a living. From my perspective, the second I dishonor my craft and turn it into nothing more than a product to consumer I remote the art from the results. That would spell doom for my words and worlds.

I often wonder what my idol, Clive Barker, would have become had he treated his written words as a commodity. I can’t imagine the likes of Imajica would ever have been penned. That would be a travesty.

Richard Lee Byers: Personally, I’m not acquainted with many writers who intrinsically support one over the other since, as my previous answer implied, most working writers see this as kind of a false dichotomy to begin with.

Sometimes writers succumb to the temptation to take public potshots at others who are far more successful even though, in the detractor’s view, their work is not very good. But this happens because envy is the spiritual malady to which writers are most prone. That same critic will almost invariably hold other highly commercial writers in high esteem.

Iscah: I think writers tend to support things that reflect what they themselves do. I support both, but I admit to getting annoyed when writers think writing is all about their own expression and reader experience isn't a critical part of making something sellable or even enjoyable.

Percival Constantine: Both absolutely are needed. I think a lot of the division comes from the starving artist stereotype. There's this myth that if you write for money, you're betraying the artform and are a sell-out, which I think absolutely needs to be dispelled. If you're only writing for the sake of art and feel that money shouldn't be part of the equation, then why are you selling books in the first place as opposed to giving them away for free?

Corrina Lawson: I've no idea why writers or other creative types do this. Creative people need to eat. This is an art but it's also a job.

Frank Fradella: The conversation of "art vs. commerce" is an internal dialogue. It's a mental shift. It doesn't come from the audience. You can deviate from what's come before all you want, but you better be good enough to pull it off. That's the only reason why guys like Neil Gaiman and David Mack became such game changers in comics. It's not that you CAN'T go against the grain and bring new art into the world, but only a craftsman who's turned the corner and made it a profession can do it for a living.

Lance Stahlberg: I had no idea that they did. Anyone who thinks in terms of "Writing to sell" clearly does not get it.

Of course once you get into publishing your work, you start to think in terms of what market to target and how to reach them. But you write the story first, then you figure out how to get people to read it. Not the other way around. Even that's the wrong approach. You don't treat them separately at all. You do both concurrently.

Starting with the question "How can I sell a million copies to X market" before you&# 39;ve typed a word is a recipe for disaster. You make an interesting character. You pit them against an interesting conflict that follows a plot that you think people will enjoy. That's art. And that's marketing. Favoring one concept over the other is nonsense. To me, they are one in the same. If you focus too hard on appealing to readers, you are dooming yourself. It is impossible to please everyone. Don't bother. But if you think "to hell with what other people like" and write only what you like... well maybe you'll still have a commercial success on your hands without realizing it. More likely, it'll suck and won't sell. But you won't care. Because you're an arteest and above such things.

What advice do you have for writers pursuing a living wage in art?

Iscah: Nearly every career field allows for opportunities where artistic skills can enhance what you do. So don't think you have to be a full time artist to make art. Drawing, writing, dancing as a career is a labor of love, but it's still labor. What's fun for a few hours make not be fun 9 to 5. So I advise only attempting a career in the arts if it's something you passionately love doing. Otherwise pursue something more stable so you can continue to enjoy art as a hobby.

You could write whole books answering 3 and/or 4. The advice is more specific depending on what field of art you want to pursue. But quitting the day job is exactly what some people need to do... Or more accurately, making it your day job.

Percival Constantine: If your goal is to make a living wage, then the first thing you have to do is get rid of this imaginary divide between art and commerce. Stories are an artform, whether it's books, movies, TV, comics, games, whatever, and people pay money for them all the time, and your story is no different. Write the story, make it as good as you can, and then get out there and sell it, whether you're selling it to an agent, a publisher, a studio, or directly to your customers. Then repeat the process again. Also, learn about whatever industry you're trying to make a living in. If you have the attitude of "I'm an artist and don't want to be bothered with the commercial side of things," then your chances of making a living wage will drastically decrease. You can't separate yourself from the commercial side and expect to be successful.

Corrina Lawson: Money brings choices. Create a secondary skill that will support your creative work and then you can make a real choice between art and writing to sell. the eldest son wants to pursue screenwriting but is also interested in accounting. My advice: learn that, use it to bring in income so creative choices aren't based on "I need that $500 to buy groceries."

Lee Houston Jr.: Art wise, I try to make each work the best I humanly can before submitting it to its prospective publisher. Yet it may be years after I'm no longer on this planet before the public makes a final decision on whether or not my work deserves to be remembered throughout the course of time.

If you mean commercialism as marketing, I certainly want my readers to know when the next release of whatever I have created is available.

All the projects I have done so far have either been for the sheer joy of writing or the creative challenge involved. If given the opportunity, there are a few things I would love the chance to do (like reviving Ellery Queen for today's audience), but again, it's more for the writing/challenge than the money that might be involved.

Regardless of what perspective you look at writing from, create the best possible work you can, because it is quality that will attract and maintain your readership in the long run, not quantity. And of course, it doesn't hurt to love what you do and do what you love, regardless of what career your pursue.

Terri Smiles: If you are writing for the sake of art, marry well and don't give up the day job. I also believe there is a middle ground between art and commercial fiction which is what I pursue - "light," entertaining fiction that also explores what it is to be human and the deeper aspects of our lives. But I worked as a healthcare lawyer for many years to be able to write the way I want to write. Art does require sacrifice and I have the scars of years of servitude to show for it.

Marian Allan: All these questions have long and complex discussions rather than answers -- except the last two, which both have the same answer: Don't give up the day job.

Frank Fradella: The advice to "write what you know" is important in that the core emotional anchor of the story has to wring true. Even when you're being paid to write non-fiction. When I wrote and illustrated The Idiot's Guide to Drawing (with thanks to Tom Waltz), it was purely work for hire. It was the kind of work I'd never done before. But I approached that book with the core belief that everyone sucks at the beginning, and everyone can get better with a little advice and a lot of practice. That, I think, is what made that book successful.

Lance Stahlberg: Keep at it. Stay motivated to keep your butt in the chair and keep writing. Learn the craft. Finish your story. Then learn the business. If you have the stoma ch and money for self-publishing, cool. Otherwise learn how to write a good submission letter. Network with editors and/or don't give up on finding an agent who will treat you right.

Do what you love. But don't pin too much of your hopes on being able to quit your day job. That could well come in time, but not if you neglect the art. Don't lose sight of why you wanted to be a writer in the first place.

Jack Wallen: Write what your heart and soul begs you to write. I write a number of very different series. As I am finishing up one book, I follow what my soul wants to write next. I never know what that’ll be. The second you give over and write what you think will sell, you lose. Why? Because what is selling when you begin might well not be what’s selling when you’re ready to hit publish. Don’t follow the rule “Write what you know.” Instead... write what you love, what you have a passion for. In the end, it will come through in the words and the reader will enjoy it all the more.

Richard Lee Byers: Work steadily. Be flexible and open to whatever opportunities present themselves. Network. Follow guidelines and meet deadlines. Recognize that in today’s marketplace, even writers who are traditionally published must generally accept a fair amount of responsibility for promoting their work.

What advice do you have for writers pursuing art in a commercial culture?

Frank Fradella: You can be an artist all day long, but at the end of that day, if you don't treat your craft like a business, you are losing the field to those who do.

Richard Lee Byers: I’m not sure such writers need much advice. If you are genuinely indifferent to making any money from your work, then clearly, you couldn’t be alive at a better time. You can self-publish on the Internet without ever having to compromise your personal vision by considering the marketplace or seeking to accommodate a traditional publisher’s requirements.

Terri Smiles: If the primary goal for your writing is maximizing income, don't write for what's hot now, write for what's just starting to garner interest. It's hard to tell, but you'll be ahead of the curve.

Iscah: Understand the steadiest paychecks come from working on other people's projects. A graphic designer or journalist will see steadier income than a gallery artist or novelist. A novelist willing to ghost write or work with a franchise may reap more financial reward than one who insists on only writing in their own worlds. However financial rewards are not the only rewards available.

There's a crass side to commercialism, but usually truly great art or writing is much easier to sell and will endure much longer than shoddy work. It's all somewhat subjective and at the mercy of the market. But a career in the arts is often a test of endurance as much as anything else.

Jack Wallen: If you opt to go the commercial route, you have to spend a lot of time following trends. In fact, you can’t just follow trends, you have to predict trends. As I said, the second you start writing that book based on a current trend, by the time you finish that trend may be played out. You’ve got to be one step ahead of the game to really be successful. That takes a lot of energy and time, so you have to be willing to put in the extra effort before you begin writing that first word. You can be lazy and pay close attention to what Hollywood is releasing in the future, as that can help as a guide. For example, Gone Girl was just released and has been a serious success. Six months ago, you should have been on top of that and ready to release something in the same vein.

Percival Constantine: Depends on what is meant by pursuing art in a commercial culture. If you mean trying to create art without caring about making money, then that's simple—do whatever you want. Just go in with the understanding that if you don't learn about the commercial side of things, you probably shouldn't quit your day job.

Corrina Lawson: Know your core story. Know what changes you can live with and what you can't. And make sure if you sell your rights, you get something for them. Never sign a contract with an agent or intellectual property rights attorney to look it over.

Lance Stahlberg: Sorry, but that question does not compute.  If you write strictly for fun and only post for free to fanfic boards and whatnot with no interest in selling it... God love you. You don't need advice and probably don't want it. If you want your work to stand out in a competitive market, the answer is the same as #3 above.

Lee Houston Jr.: If you mean commercialism as marketing, I certainly want my readers to know when the next release of whatever I have created is available.

All the projects I have done so far have either been for the sheer joy of writing or the creative challenge involved. If given the opportunity, there are a few things I would love the chance to do (like reviving Ellery Queen for today's audience), but again, it's more for the writing/challenge than the money that might be involved.

Regardless of what perspective you look at writing from, create the best possible work you can, because it is quality that will attract and maintain your readership in the long run, not quantity. And of course, it doesn't hurt to love what you do and do what you love, regardless of what career your pursue.