This is my 1,000th post at Shadow and Fang.  I would like to say that I have some brilliant insight to share that everyone will want to retweet, but to be perfectly honest, I’m having one of my rare “I hate writing.  Why am I doing this to myself?” days.

I don’t really hate writing.  I’m just frustrated.  It’s a lot of stuff boiling down to things not going as smoothly as I want them to because real life prevents me from having enough time or attention to devote to the work (GO AWAY ALREADY!), so I inevitably miss stuff and have to start over with another draft or another outline.  Just ONCE, I would like to be able to take a story (whatever length) and just write it, one draft, clean it up.  Turn it in.  Like I always do term papers.  I was totally that kid who wrote the term paper and went in reverse and deliberately messed stuff up because they insisted we have a “rough draft”.    But that’s one of the things that I’ve learned over the last three years.  Writing fiction is NOT like writing a term paper.  It’s a whole lot harder.  And no amount of my God-given book smarts is going to speed up the process.  And that is the end of my whining.  Thanks for listening.

Despite not being where I want to be, I’ve accomplished and learned a lot over the last three years.

I finished the first draft of HOC. It was an opus 9 years in the making that will probably never see the light of day.  But it was the first book I finished as an adult, which was a significant step as it totally suffered from multi-draft-itis.  I made significant strides in the rewrite before hitting a massive procedural snag and abandoned it for other things.

I made the somewhat painful transition from pantser to plotter. Anybody who’s been around since this past summer read my Pantser to Plotter series, so you already know most of my thoughts on that.  I’m still trying to refine the process to work for me.

I’ve read a lot of craft books and learned how much I don’t know. This was both illuminating and depressing.  I had the same feeling when I got out of grad school.  I’ve learned so much and it’s just a drop in the bucket.  But it’s really opened my eyes to how much room there is for improvement and whet my desire to learn more about my craft.  It’s opened my mind and, as a result, I think the work has improved.

I have started three other books and abandoned them because something was missing. That might not seem like an accomplishment to you, but I consider it one that I recognized something was missing and didn’t continue to waste my time on them.

I finished the first draft of HiS. Despite my general funk about this, it was still a significant accomplishment.  The first book that I have plotted out and written from beginning to end with very little revision along the way.

I learned about story structure and embraced it. This was my big lightbulb for the year.  It was all the things that I wasn’t understanding, that wasn’t working right in terms of plotting.  I cannot say enough positive things about this series over at Storyfix.com.

I’ve learned about and struggled with character arc. This continues to be a weak spot for me.  I had the perhaps obvious thought that what I need to remember is that these characters when the story begins are NOT CAPABLE of doing what needs to be done.  And therein lies the point of the character arc.  It’s the thing they need to learn, how they need to change to BE the person who can do what needs to be done.  Which I get from an academic standpoint, but I still am not great at executing.

And perhaps the biggest lesson of all, over the last three years, I have learned to listen to the work. Everyone seems to have a different opinion on writer’s block–whether it exists or not, what it means.  What it has almost invariably meant for me is that I’ve done something wrong.  I’ve stopped listening to the work.  It’s meant that I’ve done something like forget a character arc, mucked up the story structure (this would be why I am cranky this morning–I realized this about the novella last night), not been authentic to a character’s voice or motivation, or I’m just flat going in the wrong direction.  99% of the time, writer’s block, for me, is a sign that I need to stop and re-evaluate either the scene or the story as a whole.  The other 1% is life interfering and taking up all my brain space.

So if I can offer once piece of advice, apart from the usual practice, practice and read a lot, it would be to listen to the work.  If you’ve stagnated, chances are it’s your gut telling you you’ve done something wrong.

Thanks for sticking with me, folks.

Over at All The Worlds Our Page, Kristen is talking about how love scenes (or at the very least kissing scenes–depending on your genre) are a really great way to get to know your characters on the front end of a book.  And she’s right–there is very little that’s more illustrutive about the personality of a person and their relationship ship with someone else than when they are exposed, emotionally, physically, and spiritually (yeah, I said it) during the act of love making.  It even says a lot if it’s NOT lovemaking and is more a quick and dirty [insert that word I probably shouldn't say on the internet].  All of it tells you something about your characters.  The post is a good read, so take a minute and go check it out.

Back?  Okay, great.  So Kristen, as well as Jen Hendren, are both friends of mine from Mission:Accountability.  And they are both self-proclaimed chunksters.  As opposed to the eternal Pantser vs. Plotter debate, this is an issue of Linear vs. Writing in chunks in no particular order.  Being a staunchly linear writer myself even during my pantsing days, the whole idea of writing an entire novel in chunks that are not in chronological order seems like utter lunacy.  Totally does not compute.  If a scene for later in the story occurs to me, I’ll usually take notes so I don’t forget it, and come back to it later when it’s “time”.  But clearly this is a viable method of writing for some people.  Having read full length works from both Kristen and Jen, it definitely works for them.

In any event, Kristen’s post this morning set off a little lightbulb about, maybe, why or how this chunkster thing works.

Let’s take a moment to talk about logic.  There are, in general, two types of logic: inductive vs. deductive.

Inductive reasoning is what is sometimes referred to as “bottom up” logic.  As you can see from the illustration over here, with inductive reasoning you begin with specific observations of facts, examples, and so forth, and as you think your way through the problem or whatever, you narrow those facts into the Main Points.  From those main points you draw a conclusion.  Think of it as narrowing focus. Going from specific observation to general theories

This is the method often used to develop scientific theories.

Deductive reasoning works the other way, going from the more general to the more specific.  This is sometimes called the “top down” approach.  From a science standpoint, you begin with a theory about something, which you then focus on more specific hypotheses that can be tested.  Then that’s narrowed down even more when you collect observations or data that will allow us to either confirm or disprove our original theory.

So how does this apply to the Linear/Chunkster issue?

I think it’s a good analogy for how each of us approaches plotting.  Linear plotters start at the beginning, where they have general knowledge of characters that gradually moves toward more specific and intimate detail as the story progresses.  They often get to know characters in the same way the reader does–as the story unfolds.  So it might be suggested that linear writers are Deductive Plotters.

Chunksters work the other way.  The particular scenes that they hop around writing tend to be pivotal.  They are the specifics, the details that really illustrate something about their characters.  And they progress from these pivotal scenes toward a broader overall plot.  So I’d say that they practice Inductive Plotting.  That actually makes some sense to me–particularly for character driven plots (at which both Jen and Kristen excel).

So inquiring minds want to know.  Are you a linear writer or a chunkster?  Do you use inductive or deductive plotting?

And if you haven’t already, please hop over to Pots and Plots and check out the AMAZING new design layout created for me by Christine of CHYAssociates.

I conceived of this novella sometime during the summer when I was in the thick of writing HiS.  I made my notes, plotted it out, and let it sit.  I actually started working on it maybe a month ago, and I’m pleased with the progress I’ve made.  I even came up with a blurb for it:

When her father is captured by military scientists, firecaster Embry Hollister will do anything, break any rule to free him.  Unable to complete her mission alone, she turns to the only Shadow Walker who can help her—her father’s protégé and foster son, Gage Dempsey, whose memory was wiped years ago.  Embry and Gage must fight the clock—and their undeniable attraction—praying that his skills return in time to infiltrate a secret military base and rescue the man they both call father.

So now, I need a title. Since my skills in this area generally reek of suckitude, I’m calling for your help!  Possible titles that occurred to me are Shadows of the Past and Fire and Shadows.  Seriously, what is it about me and ____ & _____ names for stuff?  Shadow and Fang.  Pots and Plots.  Anyway, neither of these options particularly thrill me.  Have you got something better?

Central concepts: fire, shadow, memory, being caught between two worlds

A few notes: Shadow Walkers are essentially the Special Ops group of my paranormal world.  Embry is an agent for the Investigative and Enforcement Division (the FBI type group of the paranormal world).  She’s going rogue to rescue her dad.

If you happen to offer up something I love, you will receive my undying gratitude, mention in the acknowledgements, and the book of your choice from Amazon (up to $10).  Yes, the book offer is totally a bribe.  But seriously!  I used up my one good title for the decade on the YA I haven’t even written yet.

So roll in those suggestions!

I’m really late posting today.  I’ve been running around taking my car to the dealership, finding out I have a bent rim (thank you crappy Mississippi roads), having the nice and totally awesome guys at Nissan beat the thing back into shape so that I don’t have to shell out $286 just yet (though it will still have to be replaced), and frantically trying to work on lectures.  I got one finished before I left for the dealership, and though I took all my gear and computer and stuff to do another one there, I wound up getting drawn into a conversation about the psychology of Batman with another patron waiting.  I never know WHAT people will bring up when they find out I’m in psychology.  But anyway, none of that is what I wanted to talk about today.

Tyranny of the Shoulds: What is it?

Last week I finished a lecture on Karen Horney, brilliant female psychoanalyst with unfortunate married name (actually pronounced HORN-eye).  One of the things she talks about in her theory is the “tyranny of the shoulds”.   This is a concept that arises as a result of the divide between our actual selves (who we truly are) vs. our ideal selves.  We each have these sets of things we think we “should” do.  I should be a conscientious instructor and always provide feedback to students.  I should always drive the speed limit (yeah, right).  I should strive to have more patience with others.

I think I made a post sometime past about the Shoulds that we are ruled by as writers.  Okay, I went back and looked and it wasn’t what I thought, so I’ll share those thoughts too.

Tyranny of the Shoulds for Author Self-Promotion

As writers, we are bombarded by all these things we Should do.  We should develop a platform.  We should have a website.  We should throw ourselves into social networking on Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, and the 800 Web 2.0 services out there.  We should join organizations.  We should go to conferences.  We should enter contests.  Not to mention all the shoulds related to knowledge of craft.  I was thinking about this this morning as I was zipping through my Bloglines and came across a couple of different posts.  The first was over at Romance University about How Unpublished Authors Can Build Name Recognition.

1. Enter RWA chapter contests.
2. Network with established members of the genre community.
3. Attend conferences and introduce yourselves to our editors.
4. Create a website and use it to showcase your voice, your bio, projects you’re working on, and your contact information.
5. Get involved.

This is all good advice (and please see the post itself for more details description of each) but it still has me thinking about the Shoulds.  Particularly numbers 1 and 3–they both cost money in the form membership fees and entrance fees.  If you ARE an unpublished author, you don’t usually have the funds to do such things and many newbie or aspiring authors are breaking the bank to do them.  I know I sure can’t afford it.

As if reading my mind, Carrie Vaughn addresses exactly that in her Genreality post today.  Carrie talks about the shoulds of author promotion that she stressed and worried over and shares the best advice she ever got: “Write the next book.  Make it the best you can.”  There’s much more to the post and it’s well worth reading, so do take some time to visit.  I have to say I always appreciate when someone like Carrie or Lynn Viehl manage to counteract all the Shoulds out there.  Because when you are a struggling, aspiring author, 99.9% of the time you are working AT LEAST a day job, if not more.  You don’t have the time or money for all the promotional stuff that “everyone” says that you SHOULD do.  And each of them is proof that you don’t necessarily have to.  This is the thing that saves my sanity.

Tyranny of the Shoulds for Characters

Since I’ve been talking about various psychological concepts as pertains to writing and characters lately, I didn’t want to over look this one either.

It says a LOT about a character (or person for that matter) if you look at what their Shoulds are.  It’s an insignt into their personality and values. For example–give them the $100 bill test.  Say your character finds a $100 bill in the grocery store parking lot.  Does this character think that she should report it to the manager’s desk because someone obviously lost their grocery money?  Does she think she should count her blessings and use it to pay off part of her credit card?  Does she think she should donate it to charity?  Does she think she should blow it all because, hey, free cash?  Each of these is a different SHOULD response.  It’s also an interesting and illustrative question to look at their Should vs. what they actually Do.  Incidentally, this totally happened to me when I was about 10.  Mom and I reported it to the manager’s desk, but no one ever claimed it, so I got to keep it.  Don’t remember what I spent it on.

There are an endless variety of Shoulds that could give you insight into your character.   Does he think he should respect his parents as his elders?  Or does he think he should preserve personal boundaries at all costs?  All these shoulds influence your character’s behavior, and clearly you will get quite different shoulds for a hero and a villain (or perhaps they have something in common–how will you know if you don’t ask?).  The point is to think about what these shoulds are for your character and how far their actual self is from who they aspire to be.  It just might add another interesting layer you hadn’t thought of before.