Showing posts with label Jim Gillentine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jim Gillentine. Show all posts

Friday, October 6, 2023

THE VAMPIRE APOCALYPSE STARTS IN A NIGHTCLUB! ‘A NIGHT AT DEATH’S DOOR’ DEBUTS FROM PRO SE PRODUCTIONS!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

From noted author Jimmy D. Gillentine comes an action-packed paranormal urban action thriller -- A NIGHT AT DEATH’S DOOR is now available in print and digital formats from Pro Se Productions.

Janet left her simple life in Mississippi for the hustle and bustle of New York for college. At the insistence of her new roommate, Janet goes to Death’s Door, a mysterious and trendy nightclub, in reality, the hidden domain of the evil vampire Jeanova. She is planning the Rising…a ritual that will give all vampires power to resist the sun, making them the rulers of the world.

In danger of being turned into a plaything for the Vampire and her brood, Janet is saved by a small group of vampire hunters determined to stop Jeanova at all costs. Thrust into a battle for her very soul, for the planet itself, Janet and allies she barely knows must fight their way through Death’s Door to stop the Rising…or humanity will fall.

A NIGHT AT DEATH’S DOOR by Jimmy D. Gillentine. From Pro Se Productions.

With an atmospheric cover and print formatting and logo design by Antonino lo Iacono, A NIGHT AT DEATH’S DOOR is available for 7.99 via Amazon.

This exciting urban horror thriller is also available on Kindle formatted by lo Iacono and Marzia Marina for $2.99. Kindle Unlimited Members can read this exciting tale for free!

For more information on this title, interviews with the author, 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 Pro Se Productions.

Friday, April 14, 2017

AUTHOR JIM GILLENTINE SIGNS WITH PRO SE PRODUCTIONS-‘HEART OF THE BEAST’ DUE IN 2017

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

An independent Publisher of Genre Fiction, Pro Se Productions proudly welcomes author Jim Gillentine to the company. Gillentine’s HEART OF THE BEAST, which is a massive novel drawn from three smaller books, one previously unpublished, will debut in late 2017 from Pro Se Productions.

“Jim Gillentine,” says Tommy Hancock, Editor in Chief of Pro Se Productions, “has a storytelling style that is steeped not only in his own unique voice, but also bears echoes of great Southern writers to come before him. Terror, both subtle and shocking, resonate through Jim’s work, and in all of that, he not only finds the story to be told, but he latches onto it and wraps it around the reader. Pro Se Productions is beyond proud to be the home for HEART OF THE BEAST, a seminal work of Jim’s career.”

The only thing that Andrew Bane ever wanted was peace.

Instead, he found love in the arms of Angela. She was the only woman he had ever met who loved him, even knowing his true nature.

But peace was something he could never truly have. Within Andrew’s chest beats the heart of the Beast, full of rage. When the rage is awakened, a price must be paid. A price of flesh and blood. What does it mean to be a monster that can feel love? And what does the government want with the Beast, that it hunts Andrew and Angela around the world?

Follow the story of Andrew and Angela’s horrifying journey, from the dark streets of Memphis to the cold reaches of Alaska, from faraway places to deep within each others’ souls, seeking peace and freedom to love one another - if only the world would let them. HEART OF THE BEAST, due in late 2017 from Pro Se Productions.

Jim Gillentine was born and raised in Memphis, lending a southern flavor to his creatures of the night. His debut novel, OF BLOOD AND THE MOON, was a finalist for the Darrell Award in 2009. Jim is currently pursuing his bachelor’s degree in English literature and philosophy at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. He is married to author Elizabeth Donald, and they live in a haunted house in Illinois.

To learn more about Pro Se Productions, follow Pro Se on Facebook or go to www.prose-press.com.

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Big Booms vs. Deep Thoughts: The War Between Star Trek Past and Present

by Jimmy D. Gillentine 

Editor's Note: Today we're going to take a break from our usual discourse about writing to jump into some fandom discussion instead. So where better to start than with old Trek vs. new Trek? And there's also some fun stuff in here about what a young unknown writer like Gene Roddenberry had to do get get his flagship idea to launch. 

Summary: “Space... the final frontier.” With those four words, a science fiction phenomenon was born. Star Trek, developed by Gene Roddenberry, went on to become a popular culture mainstay that lasted far beyond its original three-year run on TV.

It has returned in the form of several movies starring the original cast from the show, plus several shows that enjoyed just as much popularity as the original show, if not more.

Recently, Trek has returned with new movies retelling the adventures of Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock, with different actors in the roles and with changes to the origins of the story. Many fans were looking forward to seeing their childhood show returning with modern-day special effects.

However, this has not gone over that well within the fan base. There is now a division among the fans, and the arguments that have raged online are frequent. Which shows and movies are better? Which fans are right?

When Gene Roddenberry pitched Star Trek to NBC, it took several rewrites and two pilot episodes to get the show launched. (The Making of Star Trek, Whitfield. Stephen, Roddenberry, Gene. Del Ray Books, 1968) Roddenberry was met with resistance when he first tried to get his show on the air. But he did not let that deter him from achieving his goal.

‘Compounding every young writer’s frustration is the fact that actually getting any professional experience as a writer on any large-scale production is almost impossible without the assistance of a competent and rather crafty agent. With all that in mind, Gene Roddenberry knew he’d have to resort to some incredibly unusual guerrilla tactics in securing professional representation. And that’s exactly what he did.’ (Shatner, William, and Chris Kreski. “Star Trek Memories”. New York, NY: HarperCollinsPublishers, 1993. Print.)

Using these ‘guerrilla tactics,’ Roddenberry at last convinced the executives to take a risk on his outlook on the future. It was well received by science fiction fans when it was first aired, even though the show was different from most other shows about space exploration before it. Roddenberry used the show as a platform to discuss the social issues that were hitting the country at the time the show was made. Issues such as racism, the war in Vietnam, and the Cold War with the Soviet Union were told through the medium of science fiction.

Star Trek writer David Gerrold says this can be attributed to Roddenberry’s approach to the scripts for the show. ‘Gene Roddenberry had a great speech: "Tell me the story no one else will let you tell. Tell me the one that sticks in your craw. Tell me a story that says the way things are is not the way they have to be." And writers would be inspired, they would bring back a better story than they thought they were capable of writing.’ (Gerrold, David. Online Interview, April 2015)

Roddenberry was attempting to do more with Star Trek than simply entertain the TV audiences that watched the show every week; he was trying to teach us how to be better people. Elizabeth Donald, writer for the pop-culture blog CultureGeek, had this to say on the subject: ‘Star Trek was allegorical science fiction. Best suited to television, it combined entertainment with a positive view of the future. At a time when many people doubted the human race could even have a future, Gene Roddenberry envisioned a time when we outgrew our childish stupidity, our prejudices and hatreds, and the old divisions of the past would make as much sense as “Irish need not apply.” Sometimes it was very good and sometimes it was very bad, but it nearly always meant something.’ (Donald, Elizabeth. Online Interview, April 2015.)

With Roddenberry doing his best to make the show mean something more than just a spaceship traveling between planets and sometimes getting into space battles, its following grew beyond the standard science fiction crowd.

However, despite this innovative approach to getting messages across, the original show was canceled after three seasons, and the Enterprise and her crew went off into the deep space of cancellation. But the show rose again through syndication, and it soon began to gain more fans than when it was originally on regular broadcast TV. This was the time that I was introduced to the universe that Gene Roddenberry had created. When I was in first grade living in Chicago, we were lucky to have a black and white TV in the bedroom. One night I was staying up much later than I should have, hoping to find a Godzilla movie on late-night TV. What I found was a strange show that took place on a spaceship with people in uniforms, and one person called Spock that had strange-looking ears.

I found out years later that this first episode that I watched of this strange TV show was entitled “City On the Edge of Forever.” I loved this show and wanted more of it.

Thanks to syndication, I was able to watch all of the old episodes and become a huge fan of it, as did millions of people from my generation. Moreover, the original cast coming back to do the Star Trek movies created even more fans for the franchise.

Then Star Trek: The Next Generation premiered, and it seemed like Star Trek had not only returned, but actually began to gain more momentum. Trek had a very long run with four sequel television shows and XX movies, but in the year 2005, the last Star Trek show entitled Star Trek: Enterprise was canceled. Once again, Gene Roddenberry’s vision of the future was sent off into deep space, and the fans of the shows had to be content to watch their favorite version of Trek on DVD.

However, in November 2007, filming began on a new movie as a complete reboot of the franchise. This is when a division within the fan community of Star Trek began to take place, and it started with the director of the film.

J.J. Abrams was chosen as the director for the movie, and this quote from Elizabeth Donald shows why fans began to get worried about Abrams being in charge of the new movie.

‘Abrams himself said in interviews that he didn’t like Star Trek growing up. He said it was “too smart” (ref. Daily Show interview) and he preferred sci-fi movies that were less philosophical.’(Donald) This one statement by Abrams did not sit well with most of the fans, but this is not the first time that the fans were worried about a Trek movie. Star Trek novelist, Keith DeCandido recalls this fact from when the second Trek movie The Wrath of Khan was released: ‘Nobody remembers this now, but Gene Roddenberry spent most of 1982 telling fans not to go to see WRATH OF KHAN, that it wasn't really Star Trek, that Harve Bennett (the scriptwriter for the movie) was some interloper who didn't know anything about Trek and was being brought in to ruin it.’(DeCandido, Keith. Online Interview. April 2015)

However, that movie went on to become the most favorite of fans of the old shows and is still considered one of the best movies of the entire film franchise. Keith DeCandido brings up this point about the situation. ‘Roddenberry shut up after the movie was released and became a hit, and is still considered the best of the Trek films by many – but at the time, he was saying the same things about Bennett and Nicholas Meyer that a segment of the fan base now is saying about JJ Abrams.’

But once the new Trek film was released, the division between the fans did not decrease; in fact, it has only risen. The new movie released in 2009 was full of action, fight scenes, lens flares galore, and some of the most state-of-the-art special effects Hollywood studios could produce. It had all of those things that screamed blockbuster and made over $257 million worldwide.

But to many of the fans of classic Trek, something was missing: the heart and feeling of what made Star Trek stand out from other shows and films of its kind. In fact many people thought it felt more like a Star Wars film than the thought-provoking social commentary that was in the classic series. Craig Maull, writer of the blog Future Dude, said this about the film: ‘The new film’s key plot points — like a fatherless farm boy challenged by an elder to leave his home and venture into space, and an entire planet being destroyed halfway through — were completely derivative of Star Wars. The only problem is that the two franchises have nothing to do with one another and never should! They are based on totally different foundations.’ (Maull, Craig. "Why Star Trek (2009) Is a Terrible Film." N.p., n.d. Web. 14 April 2015.)

Many felt this was one of the main problems with the reboot. Action, big explosions, and a moody, young hero were all tropes from George Lucas’ universe, of which Abrams admitted that he was more a fan than what Roddenberry was trying to get across with his creation.

Roddenberry’s view of the future was one of optimism, in which we as a people had gone through hell and came out the other side a better species for it. Yes, we still had problems, but for the most part we had reached a point where we had achieved peace on Earth and could spend more time looking for more worlds. But in the reboot from Abrams, we were treated to the sight of Kirk getting into barroom brawls and even seeing Spock as a child getting into fist fights with his fellow classmates.

When the next movie was announced, older fans’ hopes were slim that it would get any better. The movie Star Trek Into Darkness, was released in May of 2013 and was once again directed by Abrams. When it was all said and done, it made more than $467 million worldwide, nearly double the amount of the first film, but once again fans were divided on the movie.

‘From “red matter” to “black holes don’t do that” to mind-boggling stupidity on the part of all the “smart” characters, it was clear that no one was actually writing the movies. And that was before Carol Marcus took her shirt off.’ is what Elizabeth Donald said about the second movie. ‘When Trek Beta threw out the depth and philosophy of the original Trek, it threw out everything that made it Star Trek.’

Into Darkness also made the mistake of taking stories from the older movies and tried to mold and bend them for the new audience. Abrams and company tried their best to hide who actor Benedict Cumberbatch would be playing in the movie. It was known that he was the villain, but his name for his character was kept hidden. The day I went and saw the movie, the moment Cumberbatch said that his name was ‘Khan’, I put my face in my hands and just laughed. Cumberbatch is a fine actor, but he didn’t have the same air of superiority and ‘I’m better than you,’ mentality that Ricardo Montalbán portrayed in the movie Wrath of Khan.

Once again, most Trek fans felt cheated by the movie, and felt that it ‘reached near-parody status in trying to repeat the past,’ as Elizabeth Donald said about the movie.

However, the new Abrams films have its supporters. They feel that all the older Trek fans are just being old-fashioned and should try to embrace the newer movies on the merits on the entertainment factor alone. ‘I myself can be a purist, but I’m a realist and somewhat of a pragmatist. Even if I share idealistic views with said purists; I'll still admit when a movie is just great fun and pays homage (when it’s not required) to its source. I can turn off the purist and just enjoy a film experience without being pretentious about what I think or expect it’s supposed to be.’ (Camacho, E.F. "Breaking Down Arguments Against STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS & Why Trekkies Are Wrong." Comic Book Movie.com, 13 Sept. 2013. Web. 14 April 2015.)

To a certain level, I can see this point of view. There are some movies or TV shows that I watch just for fun and for entertainment, and there is nothing wrong with that at all. There is most certainly times when a person just wants to shut down their brain and enjoy a few explosions and see CGI special effects fly across the screen just for fun.

Movies like that for me include Jackie Chan films, several of the kaiju movies from Japan, something from the Terminator franchise, or one of the many movies that Marvel Studios has put out. A lot of those movies can be fun, entertaining, and a good way to go to the theater and munch some popcorn with some friends to relax and have fun.

However, Star Trek was never only about having fun and watching big booms happen when a ship is hit with photon torpedoes. It always meant something more and had something more behind it. I believe David Gerrold said it best when it comes to just what is missing from the new movies. ‘Yes, there's a lot of action, a lot of great special effects, a lot of stuff that looks like Star Trek done right. But what's missing is the heart and soul that Gene Roddenberry (and all the rest of us who worked on the original series) put into the storytelling. And I think that's the core of the disappointment that so many of the fans are feeling.’

In conclusion, the new Trek movies can be fun and a good way to kill a couple of hours. I’m sure when the next one comes out, it will make plenty of money and it will have it fans rush to defend it that it is just as good or better than what Roddenberry first dreamed of.

But until the stories behind all of the fancy ships, CGI effects, and lens flare that can blind a person have a true meaning and reason, it will just be another tent-pole movie during the summer, not really Star Trek. As David Gerrold said, ‘Star Trek, The Original Series was always about something. There was always a point to be made. Sometimes the finished episode was clumsy or heavy-handed, sometimes episodes suffered from behind the scenes circumstances that prevented them from being as good as they could have been. But the ambition was there in every episode.’

This is where the new movies are failing, the lack of ambition to be more than just another blockbuster. Perhaps with the next movie, a balance can be reached between substance and flashy special effects. Ms. Donald said this about it: ‘Is there anything we can enjoy? Clearly many people do, and perhaps that will keep enough corporate interest in the series that we might eventually get real writers writing solid scripts in the Trek 2.0 universe. So far, we’re still waiting.’

==============================================================

Cited Sources

Camacho, E.F. "Breaking Down Arguments Against STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS & Why Trekkies Are Wrong." Comic Book Movie.com, 13 Sept. 2013. Web. 14 Apr. 2015.

Gerrold, David. Donald, Elizabeth. DeCandido, Keith. "Experts Who Write It And Rate It." Online interviews. Apr. 2015.

Maull, Craig. "Why Star Trek (2009) Is a Terrible Film." N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2015.

Whitfield, Stephen E., and Gene Roddenberry. “The Making of Star Trek.” New York: Ballantine, 1968. Print.

Shatner, William, and Chris Kreski. “Star Trek Memories”. New York, NY: HarperCollinsPublishers, 1993. Print.










Friday, April 10, 2015

The Long and Short of It -- Tips for Writing to Word Counts

I periodically put out a call for topics for these roundtables. And this particular post is one of those come to fruition. One of the fans of the blog sent in a request for an article about writing to word counts. And never let it be said we don't listen to our readers.

Do approach a story differently based on the word count limit? In what ways?


Jim D. Gillentine: I never have done the 'shoot for a certain word count amount." I just let the story play itself out until I get to the last two words 'The End'. I feel like the story is a child that should be allowed to grow as long or short as it is meant to be.

I.A. Watson: If the story is size-limited I try to plan an appropriate number of beats/events for the size of the story. I aim to write something about 25% shorter than the target. That way I sometimes don't go over. Sometimes.

My Robin Hood trilogy started out intended to be one book. The trilogy now has four volumes. My 15k Byzantium novella became five 25k novellas. I may be the wrong person to ask about this.

Robert Krog: I do approach a word limit differently in some ways. I keep the language tighter. I think up a story with fewer complications and avoid introducing any character, plot element, etc that might detract from the point. I use fewer adjectives and adverbs. As I write, I do word count every few pages to see how much room I have.

Allan Gilbreath: If there is a fixed word count, I start backwards at the resolution then work backwards adding in the number of complications and characters needed to hit the target.

Bobby Nash: Of course. If I'm given a 15,000 word limit, that is probably not the project to try and write a big epic opus that spans countless generations. I've been doing this long enough now that I can tell what type of story I can tell based on the word count I'm given. The lower the word count, the fewer side trips away from the main plot, for example. with shorter prose I'm focused on telling the story first and adding extras only if there is room.

Percival Constantine: I now have a word count in mind for every story I write, whether it's long or short, for a publisher or for myself. And one way to help hit that word count is by outlining. If I look at an outline and I think, "this needs more to hit that goal," then I'll add more. Of course, it's not an exact science—there have been times when I've fallen short, times when I've overshot, but for the most part, I get the count hovering right around that target.

Gordon Dymowski: Since my tendency to write to word counts is more of editorial/publisher mandate rather than my own, I don't really worry about word counts. When it comes to limited word count, I tend to plan out a story with a much more limited time span (1 - 2 days) and in chunks of 1,000 - 2,000 words (thank you, Nanowrimo, for helping me learn how to pace out writing!). For me, stories with word count requirements are the equivalent of "bottle episodes" on television: limited in scope of time, setting, and character....but I can do a *lot* with these limitations.

Marian Allen: My life is very unscheduled and unpredictable right now -- more so than usual, I mean. I've learned that I do better at writing in these circumstances if I have some idea how the story is going to go before I begin. That way, if I'm interrupted, I have some chance of getting back on my train of thought. So, if I'm writing flash fiction, I'll write out a one-to-three sentence story arc. If it's going to be longer, I'll write out a five-to-seven point outline.

John Hartness: I outline way more intensely on longer works. For my Bubba novelettes, my outline is usually about three-four lines long. On a novel there's a lot more depth in my planning, because there's more room to get lost. When I run long I just charge more for the book. :)

Ray Dean: Of course... a 3k story vs a 10k story is very different. Same 10k to 100K. The amount of plot points that you can cover changes. The amount of 'lead up' to a plot point changes. It reminds me of when I make costumes for plays at my son's school. The important thing is to have all the costumes... ensembles that convey the character and their world, made to last through all the performances and complete the experience for the audience member... then, if you have time and money (more word count) you can add more details, a costume change for a scene that might help bring more of the character out... or bring more depth to the message of the show.

Walter Bosley: I never do anything on word count limit. I do it on page number limit and lately I use the same style approach for any length. I wrote mostly screenplays my first several years of writing, going with the general rule that a page equals a minute on screen and a feature film is between 90-120 pages. And since I started my publishing company, I work in number of pages, never word count. Thus, as a writer, I think in how many pages I want to write. When I published other authors, I never based a contract on word count per book/story. In fact, length was usually 200 pages but I never told an author their novel had to be limited specifically to that. For the magazine stories I would try to limit stories to around ten pages, expressed as such. As a writer, I keep my pulps novels to under 200 pages. I haven't worked in word count since I was in college writing reports and articles.

Mark Bousquet: I only ever seriously fret about word counts when I'm writing for someone other than me. In those instances, if I've been told the publisher wants X number of words, then I make sure to hit X number of words. Usually, this involves coming up with a tighter outline. For work that I'm going to produce, assessing the length is something I do after I have an idea of the characters/plots/ambitions of a book. At that point, I can say, "Ok, I think this story needs 15k or 50k to tell," but then I just tell the story and let it determine how long it's going to be. That initial guess on length is important, though, because the same story told in 15k is told much differently than one at 50k or 100k. If I totally pants the process, I'm going to end up with bloated texts. Case in point:

My latest novels are significantly shorter than my early novels. DREAMER'S SYNDROME and ADVENTURES OF THE FIVE: THE COMING OF FROST were something like 140,000 and 160,000 words, respectively, but my most recent works tend to be half that. Why? One, it's based on reader feedback, and two, what you learn real quick in the POD market is that longer books cost more. My first STUFFED ANIMALS FOR HIRE book is right around 35k words, I sold it for 10 bucks physical, $3 ebook, and not only has it been one of my big sellers, I make more money per copy sold on that book than I do on either DS or A5. Also, no one has complained about the price relative to the brevity of the material, though I did get a lot of complaints about the physical copies of DS and A5 being cost prohibitive at $20 physical, even though, bang for buck, it was a much greater value.

Now, I think I'm a better writer now than I was a decade ago, so perhaps this is just a sign that readers only care about the price/length if they don't enjoy the reading experience.

Lance Stahlberg: Yes and no. One of my biggest challenges is that I am really wordy. Not when it comes to descriptions or letting talking heads gab too long. I lean toward really dense plots. I don't think I'm even capable of writing a true "short story" word-count definition. I always feel like I need 5,000 more words.

So knowing that I have to get to a satisfying ending with at least one cool hook or twist within a certain word count, I need to outline the plot much more carefully before I can get started.

But even a full length novel has to end some time. You can't meander too much or the reader will get lost. Knowing that if I let myself, I'd keep going forever, I have to force myself to stop. So even then, I have a rough outline.Armand Rosamilia: For me, it has to do with the experience of writing so many different stories over the years, no matter if it is flash fiction or a novel. If I have an idea of basic word count, I automatically know how much character, plot, subplot, action, dialogue, etc. I need to shoot for. Each story has to be looked at differently depending on what length you are looking for. I usually come really, really close. Then it is a matter of adding or subtracting in edits to get even closer to the goal.

Ralph L Angelo Jr.: First, I usually set a minimum that I work to meet The minimum Is always the same, about 65,000 words on novels. (If it's a short story I work toward the number count.) Then once I reach the minimum I just keep going until I feel it's wrapped up properly. If I feel I'm falling short I add a side story, or adventure. Just another few chapters dealing with something else that gets in the heroes way that they have to deal with. Mostly I self publish so there is no overshooting for me. I just write until I'm happy with the ending. I had one story that I had to shorten for a publisher. I wrote it to about 108,000 words and I had to cut it to 68,000. That took a lot of cutting. That was an odd situation in that I wrote it first and then a publisher/friend asked to publish it, so I had to cut it down after the fact.

Ric Martens: I really don't pay to much attention to word count at first, just say what I feel needs to be said.

When you fall short on the word count a story, how do you fix it?


Walter Bosley: Since I don't work in word count, it's easier to fix as working in page numbers gives more margin. If I set out to do a 170-page pulp novel and find myself wrapping up at 185, it's no problem because my hard rule is 200-page maximum on my pulps so I'm still in range. However, I also have my rough draft formula that hasn't failed me yet when it comes to writing the final draft and keeping it paced just so and almost exact on my projected page count.

Ray Dean: The first thing i do is read it again to look for 'holes' in the story, or moments that could benefit from more explanation. Is there something that I summarized that could use more description? That doesn't mean to add things in willy-nilly, or have dialogue ramble on for no reason. You can make things better by adding words... or you could water down a tight scene instead of adding more meaning or more development in a story. Adding word count should never be something you throw in without paying attention to the story and the ramifications of the additions.

Lance Stahlberg: There is no danger of that ever happening with me.

Percival Constantine: I'm actually in this problem right now. The last novella I wrote was 29.5K, which is 500 words short of the target. Now it's not that big of a deal, but I really want to get it over that 30K mark. So when I edit it in a week or two, I'll go back and look for places where I was maybe writing a bit more sparsely and could be beefed up.

Gordon Dymowski: When I read others talk about overshooting, they'll take on a smug tone and declare that writers should "kill their darlings."

I take the opposite approach -- I get rid of anything that *doesn't* work in a story. (Because some writers who advise "killing your darlings" rarely take their own advice :))

Marian Allen: If I fall short on the word count, I look for scenes that I can "break open" to add excitement, poignancy, clarity, humor, or atmosphere. If I'm far short of the word count, I look for a way to plug in a subplot that enriches the main plot.

Robert Krog: I never fall short of a word count. I write a lot of short fiction, but the minimums are always so short that there's no worry about it. If ever I came up with too little, I think I could easily add a few adjectives, some extra description, some lengthened action to account for the lack. If I was way short, for some reason, I could add an extra plot element or character and explore that until I was in the correct range, all the while staying true to the original story arc.

Bobby Nash: Remember those extra bits I mentioned above? There you go. When you fall short, you've got an opportunity to do some character building of either your main character or perhaps some of the secondary characters, maybe even... the villain. There's always good stuff you can add, but don't just add for additions sake. You don't want to water down the story.

Ric Martens: I don't have the problem of being to short very often. When I do I just add a bit more description.

Jim D. Gillentine: After I write a story and I reread it, if there are places I can add things into it to flesh it out and make it better, then I do it. You can always catch places where you left out a minor detail to make the story much better or make more sense to the reader.

Allan Gilbreath: Add another complication if somewhat close to to the target. If way short, add another character and rewrite.

I.A. Watson: I recover from shock and look where scenes could be amplified, and check the structure to see if there are places where an additional cutaway scene or character moment might serve the tale.

Conversely, when you way overshoot the word count on a story, how do you fix it?

Robert Krog: One can always delete adverbs and frequently delete adjectives. That's a cheap and easy way if one is just a little over. No one ever misses words such as "just," "really," and "literally." It's best to avoid them anyway, most of the time. "Big" works just as well as "great big," and so does giant or enormous. If one has felt particularly inspired and waxed eloquently verbose, one might have to take more drastic action and start eliminating extraneous elements. In short fiction, that can be hard, because one has presumably only used the most necessary devices to tell the story anyway.

I have deleted minor characters, though, and even found ways to eliminate whole scenes that I thought were crucial until I really examined my story. I have sometimes tossed manuscripts and started over because I found the efforts to be too wordy.


I have also found that there are sometimes whole phrases that can be rolled up into one, little word.

It's work, and it's sometimes painful, but it is rewarding. I never send in a story that is too long. I never beg permission for an exception in my case. The editor asked for a certain length, and I either respectfully meet that requirement or do not submit. I have sometimes had ideas that I allowed to get out of hand, that I liked too much to shorten, in which case I set that idea aside and start over for the particular story call with something that does meet the requirements.

Jim D. Gillentine: I always let my wife, Elizabeth Donald, take a look at my work and let her put her editor's 'Red Pen of Death and Destruction' to work. She kills my darlings perfectly and helps me trim out all of the useless fluff out of my work. It sometimes hurts, and yes, I'll grumble about it. But ultimately, I know she knows the craft far better than I and that it will make my stories better and more enjoyable to read.

Allan Gilbreath: Do the reverse of what I mentioned before. A big overshoot is the removal of a character. If just a trim down is needed, remove a complication or two.

Marian Allen: I weep and murder some of my darlings. Some words, conversations, scenes, and subplots can be dispensed with. Some characters can be folded together. The good stuff that needs to be cut goes in a special folder, where I can fish for characters and ideas for other stories.

Ray Dean: Usually this is in the revision process, so redundant words are easy targets. The prepositional phrase that is 'nice' but not necessary. If larger cuts are needed I look for transitional scenes that might be summarized in other places instead of spelled out step by step on their own.

Then the story has to be gone over again to make sure that cuts didn't affect the continuity of the story. Like the movies I watch on DVDs with the director's cut that change plot points by omission.

I.A. Watson: I declare a trilogy. When the word count is an issue I set it aside and write something else to replace it  I'm REALLY NOT GOOD at cutting things down. Fortunately I have editors.

And then there's:
"Ian, this George and the Dragon manuscript weighs in at 230,00 words. This is a doorstop."
"You want me to cut it down?"
"I want you to sign this two-volume deal."

Lance Stahlberg: I am always streamlining action scenes and/or exposition, or even tearing out whole chunks of subplot when I realize I've gone too far over to make it to my end scene in under X-thousand words.

Sometimes you have to decide which characters are actually important to moving the plot forward, and which am you spending too much time on just because you like them. Or you may realize that a particular subplot is derailing your main plot too much to be worth it. Maybe that sidebar is better left for a sequel. 

Bobby Nash: First, kill all the adverbs! Cut the extraneous words and dialogue tags. That's a good start. Then, if you're still over, comes the hard part. You have to start killing your babies and look at what scenes can go away without hurting the story. There's usually one or two you can lose and not hurt the story.

Gordon Dymowski: Ironically, this just happened: a story I'm currently writing came up under count by over 2,000 words. However, in reading my second draft, I realized that there was a *huge* plot hole that needed to be addressed. So when I come under, I tend to look for opportunities to expand/clarify the story (and then, when I edit, look for opportunities to cut down). I'm not very concerned about meeting word counts exactly (so if I get 14,900 out of 15k words, that's OK), but I'm willing to flesh out a story that looks a little rickety.

It means taking advice Derrick Ferguson gave on the EXPLODING TYPEWRITER podcast and eliminating "was" and "had". It's finding opportunities to take out long, rambling passages and turn them into tight, concise sentences. It means rethinking exposition (showing rather than telling) and reframing action (initially, a "lost child" subplot drove the bulk of "Crossing McCausland" on TALL PULP; in order to lessen the word count, I simply cut the bulk of that exposition and led with the outcome). It also means focusing on the *story* -- anything that moves the story forward stays in; anything that messes up the gears or feels wrong gets eliminated.

Percival Constantine: I've overshot a few times, and it usually depends on whether or not the book is for a publisher and whether or not it's part of a series. My Vanguard serial is in installments of 15K episodes and the final episode ended up being 20K. I decided not to cut out that extra 5K because I felt it would be a disservice to the story, and also because it was the final episode of that season, so a longer story did feel justified. My novel SoulQuest had an initial target of 50-60K, but ended up being 90K when I finished. But since that novel was self-published and not part of a series, I saw no need to cut out that extra 30-40K.

Ric Martens: I always overshoot the word count. I fix it by going through and cutting out unneeded adverbs and the like.

Walter Bosley: Never happens because my rough draft method ensures I never exceed a specific number of pages. Ever. Of course, I have the luxury of being my own publisher (and having publisher friends and associates, I prefer it that way, lol).

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.